The URL can be used to link to this page

102814CompleteAgendaSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BABCOCK ROOM OCTOBER 28, 2014 5:45 P.M. Call to order 1. Interview of a persons interested in serving on a City advisory commissions (Council Memo No. 99) Adjournment ********************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM OCTOBER 28, 2014 6:00 P.M. Call to order (Worksession discussion times are approximate) 6:00 - 6:55 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding the 66th Street stormwater issues (Council Memo No. 100) Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. ge*eiet REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 28, 2014 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the minutes of the(1)Special City Council Worksession of October 14, 2014 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of October 14, 2014. PRESENTATIONS 1. Update on the construction of Richfield Bloomington Honda. 2. Annual meeting with the Arts Commission. 3. Annual Meeting with the Friendship City Commission. 4. Presentation of the United States Fire Administration National Fire Academy title of Executive Fire Officer upon Richfield Fire Chief Wayne Kewitsch. 5. Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Award to Finance Manager Chris Regis. (Council Memo No. 98) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 6. • Hats off to hometown hits AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Approval of the agenda. 8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items,which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved,the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action.All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of the approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan. Staff Report No. 183 B. Consideration of the approval of the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. Staff Report No. 184 C. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a$563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. Staff Report No. 185 D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving subdivision of the remnant parcels at 6245&6301 Bloomington Avenue and approving first read of transitory ordinances authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield. Staff Report No. 186 E. Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. Staff Report No. 187 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Continued public hearing regarding the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process. Staff Report No. 188 11. Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP-41007(North Richfield Parkway)and consideration of a resolution approving the assessment roll. Staff Report No. 189 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 12. Consideration of a resolution, and first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on the consideration of new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. Staff Report No. 190 RESOLUTIONS 13. Consideration of the adoption of resolutions supporting the Preliminary Concept#4B design for 66th Street between 1-35W and 16th Avenue and supporting the application of a design variance to reduce right-of-way impact. Staff Report No. 191 14. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Richfield to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint. Staff Report No. 192 OTHER BUSINESS 15. Consideration of a request for the City Council to confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. Staff Report No. 193 16. Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. Staff Report No. 194 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 17. City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 18. Claims and payrolls Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. 19. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 23, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 99 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Advisory Commission Interviews (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: In January 2014, the City Council made several appointments to the various City advisory commissions. However, there are still some vacancies. Applications continue to be accepted. The attached applications were received. The City Council is scheduled to interview the applicants on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 starting at 5:45 p.m. in the Babcock Room. Approval of the appointments is scheduled for the October 28 Regular City Council meeting. PleeAe contact me if you have any questions. R . 'p ctfuI � s itted, evi City Manager SLD:tjs Attachment E-mail: Department Directors Assistant City Manager Tuesday, October 28, 2014 Interview in Babcock Room 5:45p.m 5:.50 W Sarah Nelson Quoc Tran Special City Council Worksession in Bartholomew Room COMMISSION VACANCIES ARTS COMMISSION FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION VacListC 7:40 AM 10/21/14 Term Expires January 31, 2017 January 31, 2017 January 31, 2016 January 31, 2016 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2017 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 23, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 100 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject- October 28, 2014 Worksession — 66th Street stormwater issues Council Members: At the upcoming worksession, Pete Willenbring, WSB Engineering, the City's stormwater engineering consultant, will provide an introduction to the stormwater issues related to the 66th Street Projects. The discussion will include: • Specific drainage problem areas, such as, 66th and Newton, • Possible storm water system improvements to enhance flood protection in a wide area. Re p, ctfu y submitted, t evi City Manager SLD-.tjs Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota e4 e/ed Special City Council Worksession October 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jay Henthorne, Acting Public Safety Director/Police Chief; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director/Fire Chief; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Kristin Asher, Assistant Public Works Director; Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Chris Link, Operations Superintendent; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. Item # 1 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 UTIILITY BUDGET (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 93) Public Works Director Eastling reviewed the 2014 revised and 2015 proposed utility division budget and the 2015 proposed street light user fee. Item #2 DISCUSSION REGARDING INTERSECTIONS ON 66TH STREET (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 93) Transportation Engineer Pearson and Jack Broz, Avenue Design Partners, introduced the topic of intersection control options, including stoplights and roundabouts, along main roadways in Richfield. Acting Police Chief Henthorne and Fire Chief Kewitsch expressed their support for roundabouts related to improved enforcement and reduction in serious accident rates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: October 28, 2014 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota ge64#'eed, Regular Meeting October 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jay Henthorne, Acting Public Safety Director; Karen Barton, Assistant Community Development Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Chris Link, Public Works Operations Superintendent; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Mary Tietjen City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of September 23, 2014 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 2014. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Members Garcia and Sandahl acknowledged the success of the recent Richfield Tribute to the Arts event. Council Member Garcia announced the following upcoming events: • Ribbon cutting ceremony at Savers at the HUB on October 17 Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 14,2014 • Half Haunted Halloween at Wood Lake Nature Center on October 18 • MN Magicians Face-off Against Breast Cancer on October 25 • Tip-a-Cop at Houlihan's on October 24 Operations Superintendent Link presented information on the snow plow notification process. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of the request by St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, 7227 Penn Avenue, for a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for their Fall Fiesta Auction on November 1, 2014 S.R. No. 170 B. Consideration of the approval of the request by the Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue, for a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for their Novemberfest event on November 8-9, 2014 S.R. No 171 C. Consideration of the approval of the renewal of the contract with Chief's Towing, Inc. for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015 S.R. No. 172 D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving the sale of portions of land at 6314-17th Avenue, 6320-17th Avenue and 6408-17t Avenue S.R. No. 173 RESOLUTION NO. 10976 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6314 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10976. RESOLUTION NO. 10977 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6320 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10977. RESOLUTION NO. 10978 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6408 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10978. E. Consideration of the approval of the 2014-2015 contract with the City of Bloomington using federal grant funds to provide services in public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the development of a response system S.R. No. 174 M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar. Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 14,2014 Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BUILDING ADDITION AND RESTAURANT EXPANSION AND A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED PARKING SETBACK AT 7514 LYNDALE AVENUE S.R. NO. 175 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 175. Patti Sterbuck, property owner, was present for questions. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Garcia, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10979 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A TRADITIONAL (CLASS II) RESTAURANT AT 7514 LYNDALE AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10979. Item #6 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE S.R. NO. 176 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 176. M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2014-6, Transitory Ordinance No. 18.94, establishing a six-month moratorium on consideration of marijuana distribution facilities, that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes, and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10980 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM RELATED TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 14,2014 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10980. Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY S.R. NO. 177 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 177. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10981 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY. Council Member Elliott stated that there should be a discussion on how to require the property owners at the time the work is done be responsible for payment of the assessment; not the next buyer or owner. He requested the City Attorney review the establishment of an ordinance that puts a lien on the property for payment of the assessment. Finance Manager Regis explained the assessment process. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10981. Item #8 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR UNPAID FALSE ALARM USER FEES AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY S.R. NO. 178 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 178. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Elliott, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10982 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10982. Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 14,2014 Item #9 CONDUCT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 28, 2014 REGARDING A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ASSESS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE 77TH STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR COSTS INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE AREA FOR 2013 AND A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SIMILAR ASSESSMENT PROCESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR 2015 S.R. NO. 179 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 179. M/Goettel; S/Sandahl to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2014. Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR WORK ORDERED FROM JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 S.R. NO. 180 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 180. Jim Fingerman, 6612 Vincent Avenue, stated he did not believe he should be accountable for the cost of the assessment because he did not own the property at the time the tree was removed. Public Works Director Eastling explained the assessment process. Council Member Elliott requested that 6612 Vincent Avenue be removed from the assessment roll and be further reviewed. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Goettel; S/Elliott that the property at 6612 Vincent Avenue be removed from the assessment roll and considered at the October 28, 2014 City Council meeting and that the following amended resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10983 RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2013 TO DECEMBER 31, 2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10983. Item #11 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ASSESS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) DISTRICT FOR COSTS INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE AREA FOR 2013 AND A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SIMILAR ASSESSMENT PROCESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2015 S.R: NO. 181 Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 14,2014 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 181. Dale Woodbeck, 6120 Lyndale Avenue, Lakewinds Co-op, requested this property be removed from the district and not specially assessed because there is a maintenance agreement with the City that provides for these services. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10984 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10984. RESOLUTION NO. 10985 RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10985. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS AT 6330, 6400 AND 6440 LYNDALE AVENUE S.R. NO. 182 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 182. Colleen Carey, Cornerstone Group President, explained the request for an extension, including the investment components. Council Member Elliott expressed support for the vision of the development but that he had concerns regarding the ability for financing to complete the project. He added concerns about not being provided with updates on the project. Council Member Elliott stated he could support a six-month extension with the public amenities and financing in place. Ms. Carey discussed the status of the public amenities and the Metropolitan Council amended grant agreement being reviewed. She stated Cornerstone is intent on providing what was presented and promised. Council Member Sandahl expressed support for the extension. Mayor Goettel stated these developments take time and that she supported the extension. Assistant Community Development Director Barton stated that Cornerstone made staff aware of the amendment to the grant agreement approximately two months ago. Council Meeting Minutes -7- October 14,2014 Council Member Fitzhenry supported the extension and requested monthly updates on the project. M/Garcia, S/Sandahl to approve a six-month extension, and authorize staff to provide an additional six-month extension of Final Development Plans and the associated Conditional Use Permit for the Lyndale Gardens Planned Unit Development at 6330, 6400 and 6440 Lyndale Avenue, contingent upon substantial completion of the construction of the quasi-public improvements and securing full project funding by June 10, 2015 and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10986 RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS AT 6330, 6400 AND 6440 LYNDALE AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10986. Item #13 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich reported on a recent Xcel Energy Forum he attended. Item #14 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 10/14/14 NP Checks: 234876-235386 $ 2,745,421.71 Payroll: 104704-105361 $ 1,139,380.98 TOTAL $ 3,884,802.69 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council open meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:26 p.m. Date Approved: October 28, 2014. Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 23. 2014 Council Memorandum No. 98 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Council Members: The City was recently notified that it's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by the government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also given to the individual designated as primarily responsible for having earned the certificate. This is the 30th consecutive year that Richfield has earned the award and 34th award overall. The GF[)A, which is ibk* for reSendng the certification, is a nonprofit, professional association serving 15,000 government finance professionals. The association provides a variety of technical publications in various fields of government finance and represents the public community of Washington, D.C. Richfield's CAFR was judged by an impartial panel to meet the constructive spirit of full disclosure effort to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential persons and users to read the financial report. Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Award to Finance Manager Chris Regis is scheduled for the October 28. 2014 City Council meeting. ReapeClu|lV submitted, ° - -' ioh \ City Manager SLD:cak E-mail: Department Directors Finance Manager Assistant City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 8.A. =AM STAFF REPORT NO. 183 ogcC /, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Y' 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Transportation Commission recommended approval of the attached Richfield Safe Routes to School Plan at the September 3, 2014 meeting. The purpose of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving the Richfield School District, the City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in late-2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Funding and administration for the creation of the plan came from the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP)through Bloomington Public Health. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the 2014 Richfield Safe Routes to School Plan as recommended by the Transportation Commission. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • The Safe Routes to School Plan is consistent with previous planning efforts completed by the City including: o Comprehensive Plan o 2009 Safe Routes to School Study o Bicycle Master Plan o Complete Streets Policy • Extensive input was gathered as part of the planning effort in order to gather concerns both around individual schools and city-wide. • Besides examining conditions and issues near each school,the plan also makes overall short-term, mid-term, and long-term recommendations for the School District and City to implement. • The plan includes some funding source recommendations to examine further in order to aid in implementation costs. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The Safe Routes to School Plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan-Transportation Strategy#1: Improve non-motorized and pedestrian travel in the City(p. 6-2). C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Having an approved plan will allow staff to coordinate plan suggestions with upcoming road projects. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • There is no financial impact to approving the plan. • The City may apply for Federal and State SRTS funding when available to assist in project implementation. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council may choose to not approve the SRTS plan and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ 2014 Richfield SRTS Plan Backup Material L3 5" ; `fir ll 0 i --3.A. - cITY +F.;Fl LD - ! a iT • -r,r_____.; ST= - a. �— - SCHOOL Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan April 2014 Prepared By: N.„ Kimley-Horn ►� and Associates,Inc. liStatewide 7-- Health Improvement Program H E A L T H R E F O R M CITY OF RICHFIELD ° i • Safe Routes to S chool Comprehensive_Plans SCHOOL] ;: Acknowledgements This Safe Routes to School plan could not have been created without the time,energy, knowledge,and input of the following individuals and agencies: Jeff Pearson, City of Richfield Public Works Michael Schwartz, Richfield Public Schools Jessica Smith, Bloomington Public Health Julie Zamora, Bloomington Public Health Lee Ann Wise, Centennial Elementary School Principal Marta Shahsavand, Richfield Dual Language School Principal Jason Wenschlag, Richfield High School Principal Brian Zambreno, Richfield Middle School Principal Jodi Markworth,Sheridan Hills Elementary School Principal Joey Page, Richfield STEM School Principal Statewide H SIT-Tr t mprovemenealth t Kimley Horn Program H E A L T H R E F O R M and Associates,Inc. 3i CITY OF RICHFIELD i�/ Safe Routes to School Coiii reherisive.Plax ti _ -- - ,1 00L� l !r L 1 ---� Table of Contents Executive Summary E-1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Project Process 2 Existing Conditions Assessment 2 Student Data 3 Infrastructure 4 Centennial Elementary 5 Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools 6 Sheridan Hills Elementary 7 Richfield Middle School 8 Richfield High School 10 Policy and Programming 11 Challenges and Opportunities 11 Recommendations 12 Short-Term 13 Mid-Term 14 Long-Term 15 Funding and Implementation 16 Appendix A-1 Student Travel Tally Results A-2 Parent Survey Results A-3 Resources A-7 References A-12 Statewide TT TT T -- 7 Health sip Improvement 1 �� Kimley-Horn Program REF F O R M and Associates,Inc. II • ›CITY OF RICHFIELD r - Safe Routes to Sehooll' s " ill Corn rehei sive Plan'' , .; F P y " - - ooh �- .. ..•' •' ...rte .,.� Executive Summary The purpose of a Safe Routes to School Plan (ARTS) is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving Richfield School District, City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in 2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students' health, vehicle congestion,traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out why their children did not walk or bike to school. The most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety,weather, and crime. Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the five "E's": • Education—Teaching children to walk and bike safely • Encouragement—Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school • Enforcement—Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school • Engineering—Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking • Evaluation—Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project This Safe Routes to School Plan plays an important function of connecting the roles of the school district and the city in jointly seeking to increase walking and biking to school. It is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed, while also capturing all the factors that influence choices about transportation. The plan builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS including policy and programming. Richfield has already taken a number of significant steps to improve walking and bicycling in the community, including: • Safe Routes to School Study (2009) • Arterials Study(2009) • Bicycle Master Plan (2012) • Complete Streets Policy(2013) • Bicycle Friendly Assessment(2013) E-1 . I/ ' CITY OF RICHFIELD `. x r y' 3 + i-, 'Is Safe Routes to Sehool � = Coin rehen`sive Plank _ __~ q : scHOOi The benefits of a comprehensive SRTS plan are to provide an all-inclusive picture of the needs throughout the school district and community, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, discussions with stakeholders, and development of recommendations. Existing Conditions Assessment • Data Site Visits Gathering Parent Survey ARTS Working Principal Group Interviews J Ilir ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Stakeholder Plan Input Recommendations Improvement Priorities I Recommendations The following sections present the recommendations of the Comprehensive SRTS Plan to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. Some recommendations could be feasibly implemented in the next year, while others may require longer timelines due to policy changes or funding. Each measure has been classified according to the agency that would lead its implementation. E-2 CITY OF RICHFIELD ' �C Safe Routes to Sehool k__ Corn rehe sive Plan' ,; _ SCHOOL 1 .st City of Richfield Improvements • Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk • Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks • Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street • Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools • Replace sidewalk and construction pedestrian ramps on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street • Prioritize snow plowing and removal at schools and on school routes • Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary • Construct sidewalk on 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue • Implement the Bicycle Master Plan,with priority placed on routes that connect to schools • Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan • Pursue opportunities for bicycle land and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced Richfield Public Schools Improvements • Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue • Train adult crossing guards to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection • Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary • Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School • Develop a walking/bicycling section of the school district website • Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level • Incorporate walking and bicycling to school into the school district wellness policy • Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and bicycling activities • Replace and improve bicycle racks at all school sites • Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site • Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary • Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street • Introduce walking and bicycling into the physical education curriculum Joint City-District Improvements • Continue student travel tallies on at least an annual basis • Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group Based on its past planning and active efforts to improve its bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Richfield is well-positioned to implement infrastructure improvements and effect the cultural and policy changes necessary to see long-term shifts in travel behavior. E-3 _ ._.. CITY OF RICHFIELD � • ti E Safe Routes to School l` Coin rehensive Plan ,,• '! I SCHOOL Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students' health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. In Hennepin County, only 24 percent of children age 6 to 17 years get the minimum amount of physical activity recommended by the Centers for Disease Control? Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States indicated that the most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime.3 Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the 5 "E's": • Education—Teaching children to walk and bike safely • Encouragement—Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school • Enforcement—Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school • Engineering—Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking • Evaluation—Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project Locally, SRTS projects have been initiated and funded through federal transportation funds, as well as the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). SHIP is dedicated to promote active living in communities throughout Minnesota,with the goal of reducing obesity and preventing disease. The purpose of this Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan is to document the existing walking and biking environment in Richfield, identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making the improvements. The comprehensive nature of the plan provides an overall view of the needs and priorities in the city. Background The Richfield SRTS Study completed in 2009 established a strong foundation for improving walking and biking infrastructure at the elementary and middle schools in the city. Since that time, several other walking and biking related plans and studies have been completed and policies enacted in the city and school district, including: • Arterials Study(2009) • Bicycle Master Plan (2012) • Complete Streets Policy(2013) • Bicycle Friendly Assessment(2013) This plan is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed. It builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS 1 , 01". 111:CITY OF RICHFIELD }- #'/ I Safe Routes to Sehool`'� t, Coni reheiTsive Plan' .— .74 .� -�. I ' _- .10,:•° 11 including policy and programming.The benefits of a SRTS plan are to provide a comprehensive overview of the needs throughout a school district or city, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding.At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, followed by evaluations, and development of recommendations, and implementation. Stakeholder input was gathered at several key points in the process, as highlighted in the diagram below. Existing Conditions Assessment 1 Site Visits Data Gathering FniRTS Principal Parent Survey Interviews \ J ARTS Comprehen sive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Stakeholder Plan Input ` Recommendations Improvement Priorities ■ Existing Conditions Assessment The City of Richfield encompasses seven square miles and has a population of approximately 35,000 residents. It is a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis and much of the city was developed with a grid street network,contributing to a more urban environment compared to other suburbs in the Twin Cities area. 2 • CITY OF RICHFIELD • Safe Routes to School I s �� _ -_— Coin rehei sine Plan ., s __. Student Data The Richfield School District serves nearly 4,300 total students across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Walk boundaries for each school, which are established by the school district, set the distance within which students are not provided bus transportation. These boundaries for the Richfield School District are generally one mile for elementary schools, and two miles for middle and high school. On a district wide basis, approximately 30 percent of students live within the walk boundary of their school. A more detailed summary for each school, based on 2012-2013 enrollment data, is shown in Table 1. The students that live within the walk boundary represent the greatest opportunities for increasing walking and biking. Table 1. Richfield Students within Walk Zone Boundaries Total Enrollmefl it '.-t .1k Provided Bus B Open Enrolled Transportation Centennial 455 33% 9% 58% Elementary Richfield Dual 470 4% 19% 77% Language Richfield STEM 780 12% 10% 77% Sheridan Hills 490 22% 7% 70% Elementary Richfield Middle 920 35% 12% 53% Richfield High 1,145 57% 20% 23% School Total 4,260 31% 14% 55% Student travel tallies were conducted for kindergarten through 8th grade classrooms in fall 2012 using the National Center for Safe Routes to School standard forms. The tallies showed that an average of six percent of elementary students and 14 percent of middle school students walked or biked to school.The predominant mode at all sites was School Bus, followed by Family Vehicle. More than 25 percent of all students arrive to or from school by Family Vehicle, which accounts for significant volumes of traffic at each of the school sites. Table 2 shows the average mode results by school. A breakdown of mode for travel to and from school for each site is included in the Appendix. Counts of pedestrians and bicyclists were also conducted as part of the field observations at each site, which are described further in the next section. 3 • 1 s (-III OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan Table 2. Richfield Student Travel Tallies Modes To/From Sch Y " Carpool Other Centennial 8% 2% 76% 14% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield Dual 2% 1% 65% 31% 1% 0% Language Richfield STEM 5% 1% 64% 28% 1% 1% Sheridan Hills 4% 0% 66% 29% 1% 0% Elementary Richfield Middle 9% 5% 54% 29% 2% 1% A parent survey, developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, was conducted in August and September 2013 with 240 responses. The survey questions are directed at concerns and attitudes related to walking and biking, and parents' perceptions of barriers to walking and biking. As shown in Table 3, the most-cited reasons by parents for not regularly walking or biking to school were distance, followed by traffic concerns (intersection safety, amount of traffic, speed of traffic). The age at which parents said they would allow their child to walk or bike to school without an adult was 5th to 6th grade. In the comments section of the survey, 66th Street and Penn Avenue were specifically mentioned multiple times as being crossing barriers for students walking and biking. A full summary of the survey results is included in the Appendix. Table 3. Issues that Affect Decision to Walk or Bike Percent of 67% 17% 27% 15% 56% 61% 23% 30% 65% 13% 32% 48% Respondents Percentages do not total 100%because respondents could select more than one issue. Infrastructure Richfield has an existing network of sidewalk and bicycle facilities that connect many of the key destinations in the city, as shown in Figure 1. However, many of the major east/west roadways and nearly all local roadways do not have sidewalks. City policy is to have sidewalks on both sides of arterial 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD I ,_, • • 3 Safe Rotates to Sehool' t. Corn reheiisive Plan -r °° i`> - 6 �� scHOO streets and on one side of collector streets. On local streets, sidewalks may be constructed if needed and supported by residents through the public approval process. The City of Richfield plows all public sidewalks within the city. In addition to a citywide review, observations were conducted during school arrival and dismissal to evaluate the condition of the infrastructure, gather data on existing walking and biking numbers, and also identify the primary walk/bike routes to each school. Centennial Elementary Centennial Elementary School has approximately 460 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Bloomington Avenue and a ' lfi'�� portion of the south side of 73rd Street ►�,..> /� ;' <1 s� NP I adjacent to the school have existing �.� ; I �` sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on 73`d ` Street ends at the school property line and .40 4, •"141 as a result, students walking to and from the east were generally observed to walk in the ,; k 17 " r roadway or in the grass next to the I ' '`L.tiI ' `` ` roadway. Diagonal Blvd, located one to two blocks north of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road - trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. u:.k All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had zero or one crashes over a 10- year period.There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed on the school site and stop control was installed on 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue at 73rd Street, and on 16th Avenue, 17th Avenue, and 18th Avenue at 74th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: • Bloomington Avenue S between Diagonal Blvd and 76th Street has 950 vehicles per day • Diagonal Blvd between 12th Avenue S and Bloomington Avenue S has 1,450 vehicles per day • 76th Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue has 560 vehicles per day • Cedar Avenue between 72nd Street and 76th Street has 1,800 vehicles per day 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD 41 ' '. t Safe Routes to School � Corn rehelisive Plan z war- Most of the streets around the school are residential in nature, with relatively low traffic volumes. ---1 A school staff member patrols the 73rd -� � Street/16th Avenue intersection to assist Ems . =� -- I ■ students crossing 73rd Street to walk to the north or to walk to and from family vehicles 1i`1111 that park and drop off along 16th Avenue. A `' • • • bike rack is located on the east side of the school, next to door 2, but there is not sidewalk connecting this location to the front entrance of the school. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were less than five bicycles parked in the rack. Approximately 10 to 25 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 73rd Street. This is a relatively small number considering that Centennial has more than 150 students within the walk boundary,the highest percentage of any of the elementary schools in Richfield. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Bloomington Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is on 73rd Street in front of the school and some loading/unloading on 16th Avenue north of the school. The south side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 2. Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School are located on the same site, which is bounded by 70th Street, 12th Avenue, 71St Street, and Elliot Avenue. Since the previous SRTS study, this site has been converted from an intermediate school, with students in 3rd to 5th grades, to two separate elementary schools with kindergarten through 5th grades in both buildings. Richfield Dual Language has approximately 460 students and Richfield STEM has approximately 770 students, both with kindergarten through 5th grades. The school day at both schools is from 7:45 AM to 2:10 PM. There are existing sidewalks on the east side of Elliot Avenue next to the school site, the south side of 70th Street, and the west side of 12th Avenue. The sidewalk on Elliot Avenue is in poor condition and ends at 71st Street. As a result, students walking to and from school were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway once leaving the school grounds. Diagonal Blvd, located two blocks south of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. All the streets near the schools are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had only zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. The 70th Street/12th Avenue intersection had 8 crashes from 2003 to 2009, but has had no crashes since the conversion from a traffic signal to all-way stop control. There have been two pedestrian crashes near the school, one at 70th Street/12th Avenue and one midblock on 12th Avenue, however neither crash involved a student. 6 I • CITY OF RICHFIELD 4 ? ' Safe Rotates to School` ' �' _, Cotii i°eheiisive Plan' . - _ - . SCHOOL Signed school crossings with high visibility crosswalk markings are located at 70th Street/Elliot Avenue and 70th Street/12th Avenue. School patrols are operated at the 70th Street/12th Avenue, 71st Street/12th Avenue, and 71St Street/Elliot Avenue intersections that assist with crossings. The principal of Richfield Dual Language School reported that the patrols were removed from the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection due to safety concerns for the student patrols, based on the volume and speed of traffic on 70th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: • 70th Street between Chicago Avenue and 12th Avenue has 2,250 vehicles per day • 12th Avenue S between 70th Street and Diagonal Blvd/73rd Street has 2,800 vehicles per day The remaining streets around the school are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Two bike racks are located on the south side of the school buildings, one within the Richfield Dual Language playground and one near the south entrance to Richfield STEM. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were as many as 12 total bicycles parked between the two racks. Approximately 45 total students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being to/from the east on 70th Street and to/from the west on 71st Street. This is a relatively small number considering that the two schools have a total of more than 110 students within the walk boundary. The designated bus loading and unloading 14:A71,- "� , y- ,. YA. areas are in the parking lot on the north side L•gt".b� i ft, _ : of the school and along 70th Street. The ev - primary areas used for family pick-up/drop- ,5 �,� , �``" , ) r yx.- t off were the south parking lot for Richfield Dual Language and 12th Avenue for Richfield _ r f,4" '' ' ,1 4- ,y STEM. During the site observations of i ,�. `� s afternoon dismissal, family vehicles were A. ir,- ' I ,��`1 ;VII , r1 ,rs.*■ frequently observed parked up to the r, - ' crosswalk on 12th Avenue at 71st Street, ' - "ti� ' _ ' .�., � � limiting the visibility of both adults and ,_ i® __„ — students crossing the street. A summary of ,fir 'a .r .. the existing conditions at Richfield Dual 74i �:. Language and Richfield STEM are shown in Figure 3. ' AIM Sheridan Hills Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary School has approximately 490 students in kindergarten through 5th grade.The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Thomas Avenue, south side of 64th Street, and north side of 65th Street have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on Thomas Avenue does not extend north of the school. There is a 7 • � CITY OF RICHFEaLD ,.: ! Safe Roti is ,to , hoo �'` ,_ i # , Coin 'rehe ' j_ _ . J _ ___7111-- ' siLve ` - - _ scHOOi_ trail through Sheridan Park that begins at the 65th Street/Sheridan Avenue intersection and extends west to Vincent Avenue. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data for the intersections around the school showed that most of them had zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed near the front door of the school, but the rack is removed during the winter months. It was also noted there are no bike racks near the playground, which is used by children outside of school hours. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: • 65th Street between Penn Avenue and Vincent Avenue has 1,200 vehicles per day • 64th Street between Penn Avenue and York Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day Students that would need to cross Penn Avenue or 66th Street to travel to and from school are provided bus transportation, however several students were observed crossing Penn Avenue at the signalized intersection with 65th Street. The remaining roadways around the school generally have low traffic volumes. A school staff member acts as a crossing q; , T guard at the 64th Street/Thomas Avenue , s ,. intersection. Approximately 10 to 15 students �_ << were observed walking or biking to school, ‘4 -- ! =�t with the primary routes being east and west _ ? <" *- _ y- °�'!' on 64th Street or 65th Street. This is a small r `� percentage of the more than 100 students "` -;- that live within the walk boundary of the school. The designated bus loading and unloadin g c�Y-if � ' �' _; areas are on Thomas Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot near the front door of the school. The east side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. During the site observations, it was noted that the wide parking lot driveway onto 65th Street can be a barrier for pedestrians. In addition, there are not good sidewalk connections from the sidewalk on 65th Street to the front door of the school, as the existing route requires crossing the parking lot traffic twice. A summary of the existing conditions at Sheridan Hills Elementary are shown in Figure 4. Richfield Middle School Richfield Middle School has approximately 900 students in 6th through 8th grades. The school day is from 8:05 AM to 2:40 PM. 8 r4 P*11 y h i aq • CITY.OF RICHFIELD _ I (- MP 1 Safe Rout s to School-. !- �r iii Coiii rehe�sive Na C = _; _ oo� The east side of Oliver Avenue and the south side of 73rd Street have existing sidewalks, there is an off-road trail on the north side of f' 75th Street, and there is a marked bicycle ,,�,<.; facility on 75th Street.The on-street markings --', "`` and crosswalks appeared to have been - - '• ' ' installed with paint and were in need of repainting to improve their visibility. Jr- . All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways. However, 76th Street is located just one block south of the school it _ and I-35W is about three blocks east of the school, both of which have very high traffic il, , ._ volumes and can be significant barriers to -- a pedestrians and bicyclists. The crash data shows there have been two total crashes at any of the intersections adjacent to the school over the past 10 years.There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, 75th Street in front of the school was reconstructed and the off-road trail and on-road bicycle facility added. At the same time, the school's parking lot was reconstructed to separate parent pick-up/drop-off traffic from bus traffic and staff parking. A locked bike corral was also constructed at the southeast corner of the school. a -\ 1 L-, 0979 Traffic volume data were available for the Ot t: d / ',> , 1,ei following roadway segments, which are . %<r7 ' 2, x ?-,, generally the higher volume streets: c. r ,r1-., ai- ' ; • Humboldt Avenue between 70th Street exi r,_, a j y and 76th Street has 590 vehicles per day ✓ .. -- A 0 --a--�� s••AREA '4 •t y. ; `:'T'I no UNDER . During the observations in November 2012 r ' v <w cE , and May 2013, the bike corral was well used ,Ry. ji b C.: and there were as many as 25 bicycles 'a , ` `'� Nr..- ,.a: 3 parked in or near the corral. It was noted KP ■, during both observations that some bikes ,W `` were locked to the outside fence of the .. , - id y `'" corral and that most of the racks in the corral = " - are the older style bicycle racks. There was also demand for bicycle parking at other areas of the school site, with up to five bikes observed parked at the northwest corner of the school, near 74th Street/Thomas Avenue, where there are not bike racks. Approximately 65 students were observed walking or biking to school,with the primary route being to/from the east on 75th Street. 9 ACITY F RICHFjELD } � ;fi; Y �` gip Safe Rot*s to School ; Coin• rehesi e The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Oliver Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot/drive- through west of the main parking lot, with the entrance on 75th Street and exit on Oliver Avenue. The east side of Oliver Avenue is signed No Parking 8AM-4:30PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 5. Richfield High School Richfield High School has approximately 1,100 students in 9th through 12th grades.The school day is from 8:10 AM to 2:40 PM. Richfield High School was not included in the 2009 SRTS study because federal SRTS funding can only be used for K-8 schools. The south side of 70th Street and the east side of Harriet Avenue adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. Many students were i observed to walk in the street south of 72nd y + ►�` ; n,,' { R!i : + •Street and along the railroad tracks that run north/south along the school. All the streets "s ,, : adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways •- - r, and except for 70th Street, are residential in �. 1, !e n nature, with low traffic volumes. The Lyndale " ��, .,•, Avenue/70th Street, Lyndale Avenue/73rd Street, Harriet Avenue/70th Street, and Harriet Avenue/73`d Street intersections all have high visibility marked crosswalks and are signed as school crossings. The crash data shows that most intersections around the school have zero or one crash over the past 10 years. However, the 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection has had 2 bicycle crashes and 1 pedestrian crash, all involving high school students before or after school and there was also a mid-block pedestrian crash on 70th Street east of Harriet Avenue. The 70th Street/Pleasant Avenue intersection has had four crashes over that time period, but none involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: • 70th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 3,300 vehicles per day • 73rd Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day The school has bike racks located in the courtyard on the north side of the school building. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were up to 25 bicycles parked in the racks as well as a few bikes chained to sign posts and fences around the school campus. It was noted that there is one new bike rack on campus, the remainder are an older style rack that has the potential to damage bike tires. Approximately 140 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being 70th Street and along the railroad tracks. However,there are over 600 students that live within the walk boundary. 10 ti —r CITY •F RICK„ELD 44.Safe Rou o S. hoo reho isve' C The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on 70th Street adjacent to the school. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot south of the school, west of the main parking lot. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 6. Policy and Programming The City of Richfield was awarded SRTS grant funding in 2008, which led to the completion of the Safe Routes to School Study in 2009. A number of the recommendations from that study have already been implemented. A Safe Routes Working Group has been established in Richfield that includes City of Richfield Public Works staff, Richfield School District staff, Bloomington Public Health staff, and a Richfield school principal representative. The role of this group was to share information, identify and discuss challenges and opportunities to walking and biking to schools in Richfield, and discuss the implementation and prioritization of measures to increase walking and biking to school. At the city level, the Complete Streets Policy establishes a framework for consideration and inclusion of all users in transportation projects, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight operators. In addition, the city has a sidewalk plan included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and a separate Bicycle Master Plan (BMP)that was completed in 2012. The Richfield School District established a Wellness Policy in 2006 that addresses nutrition guidelines, nutrition education, physical activity, and parent education. The policy does not specifically address walking or biking to school, or the role of the district in active transportation to and from school. Several of the individual school sites also have wellness policies or plans, but these generally do not specifically speak to walking and biking to school. A number of localized SRTS activities have also been occurring at the individual school sites, such as participation in International Walk to School Day in the fall and National Bike to School Day in the spring, and hosting of a bike rodeo. The elementary schools also each operate a school patrol to provide for safe crossings immediately next to the school. However, there are not currently district-wide SRTS activities or walking/biking curriculum. Challenges and Opportunities As a community, Richfield has already taken a number of progressive steps to increase the opportunities for walking and biking. The creation of a Bicycle Master Plan and the passage of the Complete Streets Policy are two key measures that lay the groundwork for planning and construction of future infrastructure projects. The City has also led or been a key partner in the construction of several significant trail projects over the past five years, including the off-street trail along 75th Street, 76th Street, and Diagonal Boulevard and the future Intercity Regional Trail being built by Three Rivers Park District. Figure 7 shows the full network of planned bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure planned within the city. 11 CITY OF RICHFIELD a� 4 j ) elm Safe Routes to Soho :11 �. 1 Coin rehensive Pia s 44SCHOOLI Through discussions with the SRTS Working Group, interviews with school staff, and feedback from walking/biking assessments A, conducted in the community, several 'y'` consistent themes related to infrastructure " emerged: .� . kk • The sidewalk and trail networks continue . ' 4 to be expanded across the city, but PI significant gaps still exist, and ! r•, _� • connections to destinations are needed ,. : _—. .., ■ Crossings of major roadways are one of " = the most significant real and perceived obstacles to walking and biking • The lack of sidewalk infrastructure is seen as a barrier to walking and biking, particularly for elementary students,even when they live very close to school However, infrastructure alone is not enough to change behaviors. There remain pockets of the community that have not embraced walking and biking, and in some cases even discourage it. At the beginning of this planning process, two elementary schools in Richfield had language in their school handbooks that stated "for safety we encourage all students to ride the bus to school (or get a ride from parents". This language has since been removed from the handbooks, but demonstrates that perceptions and attitudes towards walking and biking are currently a barrier in some school communities. Education and encouragement to these populations will be necessary to begin to see changes in attitudes and behaviors. Concerns about liability also remain a challenge. Encouraging walking and biking to school do not increase the district's or school's liability risk, but continued education of school and district administrators is needed to ensure this is not a barrier to walking and biking to school. The Minnesota Public Health Law Center has resources and training available to help address this issue, including a summary of liability for schools. This document has been included in the Resources section of the Appendix. Recommendations The following sections and the maps shown in Figures 8-13 present recommendations to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. The implementation timeline for each recommendation has been identified (short-term, mid-term, long-term, or on-going) as well as identifying the agencies or organizations that would most appropriately take the lead in implementation. The recommendations identified as short-term are generally actions that could be implemented in the next 6 to 12 months, mid-term improvements are generally considered to require 1 to 2 years to implement, and long-term recommendations are expected to require more than 2 years and may also trigger other processes such as policy changes or identification of significant funding sources. Funding of the recommendations is discussed further in the Funding and Implementation section of this report. 12 - - CITY OF RICHFIELD " a Safe Routes to Sehooll Coin reheiisive Plan scHOO k _r • Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk. Although parking is already prohibited in this area, vehicles were observed to frequently park too close to the crosswalk next to Richfield STEM School, limiting the visibility of pedestrians stepping into the crosswalk. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73`d Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue. There are no sidewalks on 16th Avenue or pedestrian accommodations at this intersection. In addition, the current crossing location is within the parent pick-up/drop-off area, which has more potential conflicts with vehicles pulling in and out. Implementation lead:Centennial Elementary • Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks. The history of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection as well as the volume of traffic on 70th Street merit additional measures to increase conspicuity of the crossings. Durable pavement markings may also be considered for this location. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Train adult crossing guards (staff or volunteers)to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection before and after school. This intersection has higher traffic volumes and speeds and was identified as a concern relative to driver compliance with the school patrols. Adult crossing guards would better be able to provide for safe crossings. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Dual Language School • Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary. Bicycle parking in this area will better serve students traveling to school from the east, as well as children and families using the playground outside of school hours. Implementation lead:Richfield Public Schools • Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street. The existing pavement markings are faded and need to be repainted to improve visibility. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Prioritize snow plowing at schools and on school routes. A policy that identifies higher pedestrian areas, such as adjacent to schools and along primary routes to schools, will improve the safety and opportunity for walking to school in the winter. Implementation lead: City of Richfield • Install a bicycle rack on the west side of " - Richfield Middle School. The sports fields on the west side of the school are used by children and adults and observations showed bicycles chained to the fences in this area, indicating a demand for bicycle parking. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools • Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools. With the roadway width and lack of parking on 70th Street, traffic speeds have been 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD , . Safe Routes to School ., r - I; _;i Comprehensive,Plan-, " - = —. yk� s -- __. — 1 SCHOOL iii: identified as a key concern of the adjacent schools. Periodic speed enforcement or traffic calming measures such as dynamic speed feedback signs ("speed wagons") can help slow drivers as well as improve pedestrians' perceptions of safety. Implementation lead: City of Richfield • Continue twice-yearly student travel tallies to track changes in walking and biking to school. The travel tallies provide an easy way to measure the progress of the SRTS activities. In addition, having current data will support funding applications. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Bloomington Public Health • Develop a walking/biking section of the school district website. Walking and biking should be treated as equal transportation alternatives to riding the school bus. The webpage should list pedestrian and bicycle safety rules and tips and could also contain the school walk/bike maps. Implementation lead:Richfield Public Schools, with support from Bloomington Public Health Department. Mid-Term • Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level. Individual school sites need support to plan and implement SRTS programs, and coordination of all activities and policies across the district will make the best use of resources and best practices. Implementation lead:Richfield Public Schools • Incorporate walking and biking to school into the school district wellness policy. The language of the current policy could be strengthened to encourage walking and biking to school as having health benefits, as well as environmental benefits around the school. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools • Replace sidewalk on Elliot Avenue near 71"Street and construct pedestrian ramps.The intersection is school patrolled and is marked as a school crossing, however the sidewalk infrastructure does not facilitate pedestrian crossings. Implementation lead:City of Richfield ill fir: _ d: • Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and biking activities. There are a number of existing clubs or the potential for new clubs that could be used to promote walking and biking, such as a "Green Team" or bike club. The bike club could include teaching students bicycle maintenance and repair, as well as safe riding skills. These clubs, with support from the district, should plan yearly activities for International Walk to School Month in October and National Bike Month in May. High school and middle school students can also support these activities at the elementary school level.Implementation lead—Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School 14 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Rotes to Sehool ` Coin rehefsive Plan -_ .. __ ,1 SCHOOL • Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group. The purpose of the Safe Routes committee would be to provide on-going support and organization for walking and biking activities, as well as maintain communication and coordination among each of the agencies that have a role in walking and biking to school (city, county, school district, etc). The working group could be modeled after the Bike Task Force. Some potential activities that the working group may want to consider are planning of a Walk/Bike to School Day, organizing a family walking/biking even outside the school day. Implementation lead:Bloomington Public Health and Richfield Public Schools Long-Term • Replace old and outdated bicycle racks on all school sites. Many of the existing bicycle racks on the school sites are older style racks that provide less secure parking and can potentially damage + ' bicycle wheels. These should be '• systematically replaced over the next five v 3\'ar y^� qt. v years. A replacement program could be �p� orr :' initiated as part of a citywide bicycle 1 parking program. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools • Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site. Direct paved connections from the south and east sides of the school will provide safer and more easily navigable routes during all weather. Implementation lead:Richfield Public Schools • Construct sidewalk on 73`d Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary. A sidewalk gap exists east of the school and this route will connect to the future Intercity Regional Trail. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Construct sidewalk on 715t Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. This segment is not identified in the Richfield Sidewalk plan, but represents an existing sidewalk gap next to two school sites with more than 1,000 students. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary. A sidewalk connection on the east side of the parking lot would eliminate conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the school parking lot. Implementation lead:Richfield Public Schools • Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools. This would specifically include the proposed on-street bicycle routes on 70th Street and Sheridan Avenue/Russell Avenue and the off-road trail along the existing railroad alignment. Implementation lead:City of Richfield • Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Sidewalk segments that are adjacent to or would serve as a route to school should be prioritized, including 64th Street east of Penn Avenue, near Sheridan Hills Elementary, and 73`d Street between I-35W and Lyndale Avenue, which would provide connections to Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School. Implementation lead:City of Richfield 15 • _ .e .f CITY OF RICHFIELD +�• 1 A.,/Nk 3 Safe Routes to School ■ Cotii•reheu'sive Pla s • Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street. The existing driveway is very wide and results in a large area of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. ;, :: ss • Implementation lead: Richfield Public r' - •- vs s[ Schools _ • Introduce walking and bicycling education into the physical education curriculum. Walking and bicycling safely are life-long skills for a healthy lifestyle. Students should receive education and training about how to safely walk and bicycle to school, with or without sidewalks, as well as how to safely cross at intersections. Examples of physical education curricula are found in the Resources section of this plan. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools • Pursue opportunities for bike lane and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced. The City of Richfield been proactive in seeking opportunities to narrow travel lanes when restriping roadways, which provides a small measure of traffic calming, as well as providing additional space for pedestrians and bicyclist on the shoulder. Opportunities to construct sidewalks or shoulders as part of a larger roadway projects consistent with the Complete Streets Policy should be pursued and coordinated with the citywide maintenance and operation program. Implementation lead:City of Richfield Funding and Implementation Funding for the various recommended projects may come from a variety of sources depending on the type of project and who is implementing it. Some potential funding opportunities that currently exist and may be used to fund these recommendations include, but are not limited to: • Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota • Mini-grants through the National Center for Safe Routes to School • Federal Transportation Enhancement(TE)funds administered through the Metropolitan Council • Safe Routes to School funds administered through the Minnesota Department of Transportation Over the past four years, Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) funds have been administered by the Minnesota Department of Health through cities and counties around the state in the form of Safe Routes to School grants, Active Living grants, and assistance with preparing grant applications for other programs. These funds may be available in some form in the future, and continued communications between school districts, cities, and counties will help identify opportunities and needs for funding in the future. 16 P � 1. _ CITY OF RICHFIELD L +• $ Safe Routes to Sehool'' = �- Coin rehei sive Plan ,, : ` _ ; SCHOOL - ^ No one of the E's of Safe Routes to School will by itself increase walking and biking, which emphasizes the need for cooperation among school, city, county and other agencies in the implementation of the recommendations identified in this plan. The process used to develop this plan is only the start of on- going efforts that will be needed to result in cultural changes and significant increases in walking and biking. 17 '� - o � 7 J // I qo 'C0ifaz-L-� I 1 I /L \ \� Park-Ave coq w o �I 7 2. - _ to o r . ---I= T ark 1- — 'off I I I 'r a' Park . - 62t1,1-St ,•collet m Q m ( m > - I3rd t Park a o Q c._ -63id St - - 4 I �m o Q I I 1 •} a�64th.St.� - a I! h g a r a I I I Th16'{ Ve a' —sate sr sam st Richfeld sam st 64m•st a m I I - 1 > c c ? m m_a-c-a I . 64th-St - J e ¢' 1 g a' m Lake Park I - m _ c, Sheridan Hills Elementary �, a sa-vze[ ▪ 3 m ¢' Park ¢• ndan - - - g _ .- I N •t Park I a o—z 0 y -65th-Si S\.... 65th-St 1O• - 65tH St i m➢ 65-1/2-St > - vt D Ra 65 I •s �._ a P. _ . 0 tit\---r'fill/ m r....,,,,2, -5= d= --66tn:5t=-� - I _ _. - / a m 2,:,_ _,• j F • I I E / I a> II I ' i c — E °' 67th-St I 67m•St� w o ``_J / 67dh:StQ m��t ' 67th`St N a_ _ �I a' Jefferson a Fairwo•d Monro: c� 6ho�. / i'1 I7t —I f=orei �1 d'- ¢ -- --- r'r o I m m `C � a I , vI w a Christi t� -L I d a ' ood Lake ¢- ' Park la' iii■ c 69th-St o___0, _ t 1 t > '4' - re Cente l 69th St . z" ndale s9m-s: sm t P 7th-St 35W 00tn,st Richfield�DI Dual Lan ua e School - x - Richfield HighSchool'-' 9 w 9 - o 5 p. - > '-Richfeld S T E M.`School I 70-1'/251 a' ? of d Augsburg I ¢' d I II I o V---.-". J Cnr90 Rd�' En ,i_7-1st-St— 7-1st-St -. Y II Park _ , a O a' j J -7-1 7-1st-St y Q 71sbst-s= \S ■ 79-1:2-5:- m I a - 7tst.st- MSP ast-st E m0 Airport d, ldl as k\--I 1 a ._-��3rdst j1 ,I I N N _ , ve.\v d m oaK Gro �I I� >�2n d -St 1 r -c r�-,m Q Q I a ¢ a d � aG'-_ I.17,I _ - i ' v Q JI a ` m la m St _ t 72n dSt-U-U' m pQ ,N f_ -73 rd'St1V"T - - o -jentennTai Elementary 1 l E >¢ a a , ilson�-! '"- � I 74n-st o Richfield Middle School-Q J < d -.t Pr -7ath-st i j m ¢ b0li e g, F •m.nt Q ¢ ; a 11 a v t a a ii ,n ¢ak d � , ,I d 7stfi•st®ry _ 76tn'St P r 'a�, c 75th-St LFiL IL' - _ I Field I — � t—eiR•s�i 1 1 �---§, 76th St I lilt .mow � 1 iSt qza �� n ton 11111 F m � Rosevelt�,x J r. m c0 I c t� _ Pa egend rk1 a 77th-St 1 sa a — aainsi- < On Street B i y le Route' II —01 e L 1 77 112-St - -9 IPA f S -------- - - • 4 Off Street Trail !` t- ' 7 sou nth mor • Glover-Dr ` d a Sidewalks iOUhownD r d /ao L ../ r �o ,I. 79tH St R g Areerican_elvd I a9=i2•st School Walk Boundary 11141 r LL sots-stJ I--- -� r - I L__ j-_ _._! Municipal Boundary t'ti„FGMey+brn - ' Ci ry Figure 1.Richfield City-Wide \� and ASSOCiates.Irc - A 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet /� Pedestrian and Bicycle Existing Facilities ____ -----1--. ._,..-1 1 a> Q Christian t 00 73 Park v 0 -� 69th-St 3 .f X• c rt 0 J ii i _ - .A- .. - 9� STOP -.. --- g I I /� _�� Richfield S.T.E.M.School r_Richfield Dual Language School LI I \\•6"/ 1" a �i II- 71st St oa�oc I 71st-St— ,/ r !N a • 111511 .__—._--- __— 72nd"Sti ¢ :-. i \ 73rd:St.- A Center---."`na Elementary t, Ll Sidewalk Gap Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport 1 Wilson .74th'St I. > P Park Q o > o a5 L Q Q O � N li O O >r m Q 40: iri co > \1'4 4/4 l j 7 i t� �� - Legend 0 Traffic Signal Washington © All-Way Stop Intersection Park v Marked School Crossing 7.7th_St o_ y A School Patrolled Intersection Q / ® Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area v Signed Pedestrian Crossing 78th SY Cl Bicycle Racks IV I Street Bicycle Route _ •I Off Street Trail Enrollment:460 students --Sidewalks Number in walk zone: 150 students Half Mile Radius /=I„ Kimley-Horn t.'l N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 2. Centennial Elementary I' and Associates,Inc A Nom=1 Existing Conditions Map 14--- 6th St 1 s,-.41 Veterans ,' iMemorial ;' r J f. a 0. 1 , i Park t i Q J �. _:_ 66th.Std7f; a� I 779 Lo 1. F-71 >'Q gA o f; — — - 67th-St l ��, w > a a) a) :>. a) Q Q s > > Q, > a) -c Q Heredia iFb Y E v co ✓ i Per/I�,y��#a ,iy` a 1 i /[ fe 410 it' a + c� �y . a f{ >�,y. 1 Q 68th St �, :{`e N — — .ti T 69th St ---E >.,�,. 69th St—_c• ?� Chris t I P. k •; Adult crossing - - a t it' guards needed ? `, _ Q 7 ,';v-.a . it rr 1i Y � , ,v_ --, 0th St STOP r Richfield Dual Language School ,a r.; '1i '�. r Richfield S.T.E.M.School c Arks. `` 'ii J,,, - t �- e-' \ 7,Tst St 3 71st St L—gym r Ia �,. 07:1-1" ' {, 1 I 71st St -1~mod-r.'"' ,x I .{ ., t r fed •• Parked vehicles too .1141...'7:.., t` 1 ` ) +, , close to crosswalk l•* ?4' ltd c Sidewalk on Elliot Aver�0 r 1 i Sidewalk gap l ':. in poor condition J , •,� e : i 1 1 on 71st St v4 . 72nd-St- •i ' 7-2nd-St �a� 5 1 Q 4 r ... ,.. ? .et, • 0 • r'11r 73rd St Q - 73rd:St If D r - '4A:. a) Legend r > >(1) o a) Traffic Signal r Q Q u,' 74th St -6 �----- ------ All-Way Stop Intersection ,I Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection l Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area A Signed Pedestrian Crossing _ Richfield Dual Language School 75th-St Enrollment:461 students I Bicycle Racks Number in walk zone: 19 students On Street Bicycle Route Richfield STEM School Enrollment:772 students Off Street Trail Number in walk zone:93 students Sidewalks I I .-.111i I Half Mile Radius 11/""=I Kimley-Horn ;S) 1 N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 3. Richfield Dual Language &STEM ►�/, and Associates,Inc. " A Schools Existing Conditions Map F f 59th-St— ¢ 59thtSt. < Ii Q r « Q i Q o ,14. 4,.i fir.? ° a rx o 60th-St --> Q Q Q I O CU Q• Q w • 61st St / 7L'') C N Q V X N> 2, y 1 / 2 v • —� 4 '6nd S l —62nd-St •••■.62 — ° Q L { Tti fi ' Madison Heritage-Dr i j in '' `, Park ro F Q ° Q 63rd-St ro a?„ I ]] ¢. Q No designated 4 <, 3 0 school crossings ; '. �'i, >- -c ' I _ m •64th-St. ' _ - „�6 Us i`' I 't` – 64thrSt- 1 X Sheridan Hills Elementary i,. CI No bike racks Q '' `• near playground I I,' o �` _ - i s Q . N A 4,:..-- f N. Z >'. Q'. - ee r' —65th St. STOP. ��l "�.`°. �x 0 Sheridan Park 7 .Y Q C a a .. 65 172 St ? 4 ° c u..a Wide driveway l c m tr_ �1, enterance / 2). 'o —4E-- l.J ' �1 •-66th,St,� � , f1 .---,Sduthdale Cir ' i° ° o J H r -. 67th St — d y a. ,�'t •{ Jeffersor > Legend cu 1' s' V. Park ? ° i iY-..-.4,-/-....<,- :t, Traffic Signal w: 1 1'5;1 `– �. e STOP All-Way Stop Intersection itlG ° ---- -,, >— I t I Marked School Crossing 7 I ( Q> > School Patrolled Intersection a� - w o z Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area �t c 14 , 7f J ¢ I Signed Pedestrian Crossing ---� 1 0> -----.-- 69th-St— J Bicycle Racks >.' -On Street Bicycle Route Enrollment:490 students Off Street Trail Number in walk zone: 110 students —Sidewalks ____./, 1 I L Half Mile Radius „ Kimley-Horn Si ' N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 4. Sheridan Hills Elementary pr.�� and Associates,Inc A IMMIIM Existing Conditions Map 69th-St' - I Q o a> a Q Q Q yy > _o a) Q 7 ,), G m = 5- E (I). , L 41 - ' I "� ( �1. 70th St s.! ' if a,c� 4, . > 35W tt Y"i r a CD 1-70-1'/2-St C c 4 " Q 7-1st-St— ' 4. i 4 c7). 71strt T • *0 ` r _ `I G 444,,,--' " Q tiC 7-1-1/2•St- a ,..s Py �J r u, lai ', ;� a, Wood Lak: r , t z v `} o I Nature Cente 72nd St --Q> „r,' Z. L. x e9s > o h'o Q > Y „'' !'e or o a I r " 72-1/2-St ' '. ' > ' Pedestrian Bridge Ada ms\ :C' Q Q •: > r s - Hill Park �r Q c aror ---- . . �7c3r.d.St: �'--.-. 73rd�St co i� _. No bike racks on 11 q a .A. !'" west side of school Donalds n o r6 ■CD Q> Park -Q 74th St w[-ia ' v 74th-St'--E Bicycles parked I ' 2 ;P > > i outside corral E u_ Q > Q Richfield Middle School _ c Q m , m s •remo i E i r FT �f * ! , Park _ _ ;llo�d r,. -STOP. 75th-St— �~ I;i a>' �, aj Bicycle route ¢•, > >1 pavement markings o. F, • (Si need to be repainted �.' • 2' Il ti d Ili Z ', - _Li _L' ::I-'__,�___ `76th=St' _� M"1 ■.....I 4,.-77tih S t.,. , .7 s > Legend ` `'4 rM ` tt 1 Traffic Signal _',Ls`_:'s r t "' All-Way Stop Intersection ;'"fig, Marked School Crossing +L " ,^ ' � ' School Patrolled intersection P;1; 494 • S. thtown-er- Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area -- ii `Q� .,J„ Signed Pedestrian Crossing a �„� ,e Vie. E7 Bicycle Racks - o • 35W 1 G•• On Street Bicycle Route •1' Y Off Street Trail , 1 :.- —�Sidewalks �: I Enrollment:904 students � ' -�.i, J' , ;� Number in walk zone:317 students Half Mile Radiusz. �� 'tu — : Amman Blvd ,��js ��inii� �s. Pr.-MN r, Kimley-Horn ! .'SHIP N 0 310 620 1,240 Feet Figure 5. Richfield Middle School 1!0+`--, and Associates,Inc /I\V Existing Conditions Map ' C-, I.I • _v s5t ,S? , '�6 t, ti i F, " It 1311, t, �5r t� �►‘, sd �yi: l 'ae~Ptl'.• t' A. r fir ,y '* :�•' lak 'C Ifs~ �•�F - ;a .�• G � !• � _ Rr.7[.{ Y\ •1 44 �,t LK T •x..rl of // �•i f x Q y 1 xl. ,'47`•P'7"';. arm. ..,I I r �`-- ° ,'. :I m', ,•I Q,_"r"• 66th St` .� )'• x'41• .. ' irti-:',0v-Ar 1.1 . /... --- -./ ,4*,.- 4,. , . (,;' , t ,_ 1 II' , , , 1 $44.‘)/71.1=, -f# # Qf 1u 5.'- b'• a,. Y'�?•I y l r .'ti)� �} �‘s YYY---"'(- t.Y. jam' . 4` .s rk(s +.t1,/)',, •,-,r ,• •'=E;., Y. �d!re f _11 ,67.tfi.St'i ter,: I, `tl . if4 q �' r t us. iPit":".. a -Ai" .i, .4:, '4.i., ;• 74, ' ,.. '..,:i 's,''..',y,+"ts... •', : 0, 68th St "t1:17-''',1:-,!":7-; e:::41:'r t I i ) / . .ki g.., a v -o Q > p m > Q 691 ,01 1 i r.` 69th St c11-:(1 =o= 'm-69th;St +Y �t,Q ' r l r l d I C m > '1.2 ,-t 44 History of pedestrian/ 1,4�, • r Y � �;�1_1 bicycle crashes Ip Bicycle racks in o ,? r" Wood Lake + r`` need of replacement I 1 ,., s e' I , Nature Center /� �f lV I � I r r= # ;r :. 0 0 ,,y^�,�,. 70thiSb��'' 7 Tov , I '. 7-,1.x: ��'�(Richfield High School 's ",` IL . , •Y r ` 7�1stfSt 'ark stn, 71!st St. ii,e if � any 4,4_(1)4P T�Q ,f j=, '�' ._� ,,- \t•+ ,4 . 4' ° ¢' _ Students walk along f i r • ±f t a / railroad tracks _ is p tR j 7-1St+St I,{ `m: 7 y *]' �: r �.. !"3-i 72nd S:::(1.::', '' ,-#n. x'� .t 472nd St +4x : , r � a I �Y f K 1 tl. x d • .y� 11 �`. .. , . C ri .l ii i. wH' I f - , m l,y.• NY, 4.'T . ;,., `f' 3 ,r f. 1'r ' r' ' '' I, .: r �" ki '.L.'� } j•:' 3 d f,- £,-otr2' / . PleasantdLn� {1- ;� ,i N, KF�., !O Gr ve.;g\V f fi • � _�,t-f, I )4- 'I"4 ,: 0-ic.,. (+,- , tktl: 'r.-- �1 O Alt.° rig t o - ! l 5: K ' a i '.Q ':,• DAtf' •t i ° i� C� . PT >�r �Q._ _�.' ?C� 1 W~� cr� ,; 'Q t '''f ._,• ,. . ' ° s.i ,:4,. . len. m-I r-o'1 ''; Legend 'X- 3�• C "� ' ,- P Traffic Signal ' 1. > , .:,. P,Ilsbury•Ln j :, l Si08 All-Way Stop Intersection ;t,k `' !Y �e. ` '' - ` } . I, 4: Marked School Crossing > 74thzSt- e Q o � " ®School Patrolled Intersection r co > Q Q ° Q � �. Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area ;;�„ c c -`o Rai .1 Q>' co o v -' �. Signed Pedestrian Crossing E I `r -n j Bicycle Racks 75th-St .� Lincoln a --a-On Street Bicycle Route Field Off Street Trail .,( Enrollment: 1,101 students Sidewalks `t Number in walk zone:626 students Half Mile Radius i, . l I f i lli l - C• Kimley-Horn SI I' N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 6. Richfield High School M„ -and Associates,Inc A wommi Existing Conditions Map { =r -- ---- _ Taft -_ -.,_ - -..-- ------ ------- --------- '-- '- -~ r:rtL lle .., ,,..,, - -------- ----- — -----„OP I TAadiso �--.�,,, g � dark r { - _.`x.. ,_ ..,. r,. _ _ Sheridan Hills Elementary f Ve•- I ! Richfe� � 1 Lake Park �S Park X` Farki _ IL . I IL ,.J 'L. ' ', Aii„ie ,T , ., II �� F 't i-1 t^, L �I 1T1 , , Jefferson Fairwood Monroe 'r - ,._, Park Park Field IT �I z-____----,--„,./L---)E- L 's ood Lake / ' T � ii Christi Park , Ii , I r . reCente ( I� 11 yndale ___ _. Field , '041' S Au sour Rlchfeld�Dual Language School. -Richfield S.T.E.M.-School— _ � .y. .Y ...., Park r F � Richfield Hi hSchool•— 1 ` l' ; ,'t ^'ei; f w� :g7:44=..-i. 4 .--44.,..4. ' �J, llrport d .� _ _ _ _.II ----- 1:-,;^:!!"'�", ,_ _ - I. I_ --JL .. _ _ _ _ ' ary II ark ` I� ' ; Centennial Element .• ► ; I r.: Richfield Middle School IF II Legend .....H...„. P '6ona P .rk• Park j Off Street Trail LincLL _f Fie JL - O Street Route r ' �� —� ]E... .—1 Roosevelt I� ._,- 1 I Park BMP Preferred Future Trail Route 1 I 1�- ,J I I-1 ( Future Off Street Trail • 1 Sidewalks ' • _ Proposed Sidewalks .- . r _ • - - 1 i School Walk Boundary _.-- l p l M un'ci a Boundary t r...-� KiMey-HOrn N Figure 7.Richfield City-Wide �I,anQ Associates.lrt. _=SH n 0 625 1250 2500 Feet N Planned Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities ,i 9 r - .. •,"- „,.. ,-,. .iy,, , ,.r g._. r a r T ,,. 'r ii }- 1. f( . • 1 1,1.,x. r 4. v. P .Y y ,,>r 0i. ... "' :x'h ) -' -,- alp I i, / - r.. .r 77 , ! ,t .,} ' ii H 1{' , 4 44 > / '- -- -72d-St t IV , i.a li't'-' 1,4\1 : 4 r I �ii r__ - . - . `rii}i., f• .';�£rs '. ,i. *` Improve crossing at ,',AL,. �l I l F_ t �. t z Xr ;, 73rd St/16th Ave S r fi IT-,7', ,, � " r r / ,..7..2-/„ o� a ; i l b ` ' 7-3rd-St--� ----- .‘ ;r3' I 1 .7.-''..,.':',-f L I It �D A 4 t � P r!` m `t I' � T' � I � Centennial Elementary` ti' 4 l CO � , Construct sidewalk or stripe 1s7{ r �. on road pedestrian area J _ firt _.. St. �.,X 41; "- i 1NIk•' k, Construct sidewalk connection •:� -1'• I °` from bike racks to front door Se ,...,., . 4,,,,:,,, ,, ', - „..-,.,_,.4,..ir . ii ,, ,,,. , -. . ., , , i, 74 th-St v * '' - Wilson i,-i Park Construct sidewalk connection Legend , tit Traffic Signal STOP All-Way Stop Intersection•�t Y P 4 > Q _ I -•!,. , C - Q _ Marked School Crossing ' _,.1......1„, - - - School Patrolled intersection j 1 =,k '- c � t Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area iv:• . •. <X Signed Pedestrian Crossing i` - `1 - - El Bicycle Racks - - a - ., `_ - BMP Preferred Future On Street Route 75th-St - : . �` BMP Preferred Future Trail Route •"Y:"I_ ,- -1 + i Future Off Street Trail V •,h ' --T On Street Bicycle Route ��^ . - r '': 'e ,+ ' - .1* '"' —.,. : . Off Street Trail ik. o -Sidewalks Enrollment:460 students . r ■ Proposed Sidewalks Number in walk zone: 150 students , :--tit 1i7.Half Mile Radius Kimley-I-lorn SI i N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 8. Centennial Elementary C MI,� an0 Associates,Inc A School Recommendations Map ,, .1 I 65th St r _� 1.+ tt1 y,�y .t .' IFt I Z—T.t �_ ..,...."e� 'X r f GS• , It .i I 4 ' Veterans Y t_ i x .r '6e s J, , t<-'a, .,kh_nr I .r a Memorial "Z`. •.,'t . , , i Park { � ? • ------ 7-"- �7.�-. ti� e, t ,Q Qc . ,-z.66thrS Y. "fir, 1 • 67th-St . r .r asza • fit,. L Heredia4-0' 'Y a 1 E F�r�v r Y• r4~ ".*" `°Ir 4 Park, k'‘,‘,04(•'- 0,_I- 4k,;• '. - i { i:.,d, a'°% .. U #QjJl 1 }tA.f c i t C.A1 - ae ter• n68tli-Star 9a�- I' 1 - '' . 4 5 -. Is'i N ' • �' V3 t f I 5'< Q ,' ± O :, Q ' --69th- t -E - _ S t-- -_L- 1,,-,.. Implement trained -? Implement planned C `. adult school patrol or g ' bike facility r :% i t' + Install bike racks I s r / ..r,-- ,...„:1 -70th'St STOP t43. Richfield Dual Language School 91 y + }� Richfield S.T.E.M.School Q CD a 1 Li 'Sin No Parking zone o? • Reconstruct sidewalk , o tt .7,1 st St I_ I - = - `� 71st St Q.-_ .o O/. �`. b 71st St lr "31-- ► c .mac[I- 1 - - y 7 I ;r> t Construct sidewalk r ;:. f on 71st Street h� . ii%, a I r r+ 47 '-/i • 72ndSSt I I 72nd-St s *Ale,F M, r C` r A •rye I ' ; 44' ( Construct pedestrian ramps i'' o°` *"r `7,L-.•If rf , Fri -". �', ii Legend i�' ( '` � {'. C Signed Pedestrian Crossing �` 73rd,St. a — ® � - r, ,'. 'i" l': Traffic Signal , Y�• - a, Marked School Crossing 'r Q School Patrolled Intersection of�f - °Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 74th St W II)All-Way Stop Intersection f,, H Bicycle Racks Vir• 1, BMP Preferred Future On Street Route c t i BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail _ Richfield Dual Language School .�7.5th-St- —On Street Bicycle Route Enrollment:461 students .-t�• Number in walk zone: 19 students y''.1'. • --Off Street Trail Richfield STEM School 3 —Sidewalks Enrollment: 772 students — Proposed Sidewalks Number in walk zone:93 students 1, rr 9 Half Mile Radius I I 6,r 1 Kimley-Horn SI j I ' N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 9. Richfield Dual Language &STEM II/ and Associates,Inc Recommendations Map •'fit .: { k, -,:- .. - T•> F f'--,,•:-; ° Q "7 1 h t• z r fi ;....:10:.1 1-71.-..1.;-..11 x40,1 s, is 0 o 'fir{. 6 "• -5.„.,, " -tt: .,-.;" , :.... 7 I...4.4: -71ffir ',,,...-:, C .• ' .^ , , ---,' 4- .-.:.:.-,' ' _ 11:- i ti't-- .: gyp,1 ♦ i. l•: In S 1 - i. S 3 .�' iTi i1 t� a Pr' -M,.:'._..: , c }}� � .,t Implement planned I it L ,Y,Y/ r` ,'k i ,� sty, ,.z I bike facility •r STOP 6 t h St v -___ _ :_. ,.....° :, „„4... .. _• ma }. ! s 4 Sheridan Hills Elementary gg } { y } 'Y"` ;, f! I - A . t V 'al! ,"ru± it Install bike racks . t. 11114 � , f sTg Construct sidewalk to ' •> a�sj��44'_ school enterance • z I I ` s� ' y 1 N4V . t '1 ,c ",ti. , rj I v•.. ti" ♦IC,,Ia -;1‘,.-*.,q • ,. I 1 �•� d ?. r.'"+', ti, ?*'4" 'ice .. > i�.at.!, .^', ,,It ,,. .65th St STOP��_1y4.-4W, STOP �.: 1 ••~ 1 - , v y Y Q 1 t 11! ., .rti 1 1 t. Sheridan Park 1�;•1 li ii kit rri(..It. 1 e t rent e fi- , . a •C.t i �� k +5 ,, T t heaI 1!ry�itt � f f ,. e1,;,�1P r't, Construct narrower driveway w 65 1/2-St +r' " j l • . i i„„ w "4, Legend R' 1,+ r S 'r ={ t ,.,. I gt Traffic Signal r. ,,,: -s , 'i 1 ; ,1' 1171 ,_will i a t`. I '' All-Way Stop Intersection ` 1 c '. <,«r .;1/,!r$''p. �' 3 , . . �' «f Marked School Crossing r, 66th-St --THE.-_N ! --- School Patrolled Intersection rir - h yr • .'e 1 Q Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area h '” ,'r ' g, 1- - Signed Pedestrian Crossing I b « i •- 1J. 1.' ik~ _s r• ,�_ .- , S ( i .1,' 1 2 I Bicycle Racks•t. S t�.y '. r. 'I � 'i , > > ' BMP Preferred Future On Street Route Ar , . 1'7-'2, ' 4 �1 � T BMP Preferred Future Trail Route .• •, Future Off Street Trail 1 @ J "_`. ;Jr,",,,', , t a H -On Street Bicycle Route `t � ,4 �! Off Street Trail �!� ,< * - • —Sidewalks Enrollment:490 students ..ti ti spy s Number in walk zone: 110 students t n 6. • _ Proposed Sidewalks —� t ? ,J Half Mile Radius pew. �I _ �I .� �. �- — — op--wo,l Kimley-Horn .1 I N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills Elementary and Associates,Inc A I N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills Elementary 1■..1111111r I and Associates,Inc. A v Recommendations Map �+s STOP_. ate• 73rd St ''�' i 4 v ., <t .y_ T.� 1. r C� N �a >'�' ; l r' .• - ' N4� �, ivy ,{'• i ., i !a ..s Z 3 f'.W. n `',.iotv,� d•,"- F i `' gym -'. -;t r e.��t 14 t., co, _ J:' 'til !,Alt.-4,', fZ f . :! ► g - r y.ry?.. rn'c3,0-.:4`-','+ i>• O ~ `• -'�.' 4 ` 't• i/ 1 i� fj ,, f i _ Y.s r �J,-�ti-.°r f-• �x -,'!;.,f'. rte, '.�• -1,4.7t,. . '. -...t• i i. r n, �•". re �.. {. �• K 1. `"'�+ T „.`�•,2. .• '. ,. s ' :-4,` ? .._ _ - ,.; r t I ` 'R!T. ' Install bike rack t a) Q M 74th St sTOP E 41111k....!; r Tr . le, .i. , I Richfield Middle School Replace bike racks Don,Idson ik ■W. t �r .. ' T. 4 Repaint on-street ' f"�9r' ; 4 'f bike markings ..±y!Jr.�" y wNF FoNrt cNF\FF t: � � t • _:., r !l+Qttffdrn F r . F F\kKFKGt ��STOP '�7�STOP,f -:.... r f ''', - i•i; 0 - -a t .; a q; �. ' �7f�y t 4 ,- v 4 rt�F rjr �Pr! I! '{J F 3 ti a �0.!t` "1 ::"611'''. f, 4 _F. I , -...-,. -.le---,i'f'- " ' 'ik'4-: • , „.: . , ., _. .. ,..,.i ,,. , ., ....,..-;-,,• ' 2 QS 41: y o . ., . i s Ga -,- : - . rn , '• ' i ( e tlr! ' : m r. . • ' 44, A : • _ , / .._ ., .._ , .., ______;___.....") . I'1 76th-St -- IJ Legend 76th St gE Traffic Signal `j' 4 �: e a \\A 1 -' , \ All-Way Stop Intersection• J .�• \�+ � " �� :S Marked School Crossing .i%. �t ' ,` :::::::::::dP::::t:provement' O Area l . . . = ' 1. .+.: �� . ., O Signed Pedestrian Crossing 1. -, e, t r [� Bicycle Racks 7,� ' y � BMP Preferred Future On Street Route • • 7,1 . T r i ft BMP Preferred Future Trail Route ��r Future Off Street Trail . OF �' 1 On Street Bicycle Route :11 z Ly NI,lc p..; - \� '' a `� Off Street Trail F :i •� \ iI' --------'•Sidewalks t t � "Al 9 . Y Enrollment:904 students '. .i&'4, c . *y!. ;' Proposed Sidewalks Number in walk zone:317 students �I ° ''' \ + I Half Mile Radius CNM/, Kimley-Horn It SI )' ' N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 11. Richfield Middle and Associates,Inc. A School Recommendations Map . ,-.:-.7.,-,:s--1111141L-0,—, f.,. .=-,,,;.,, .i...5 ;.., , 't.-4:elt ,..;1r; _r . g'44r#,5-■• ," 3 . ',`, 0 ., 747- . ,-;.'11- . ' , •-•-•:---,' it.,.-. 4 a'.;. • .. . ,,eli,._.,.._. . . k - •0 ,..- , ..... . .- ,.. f ,. ca. "--„IN.: i.a , • ','_. . ''' ‘'‘I ' '- •. f.• Nekt- I r . I` ,0.. •,.n:. . . • • , . , - rk.-: '- -- P.,,.,1 %- - - , ' v.,- -- ..- '••,. • ,.-.. 5: • 1 . 0') - f./ .. ...i. ,i• - -,..a.mi. • • ...? .. - . ._.:: • - —RI,. . ., ,- ,s• „.„--10,, ... . t--- ••• -'-r-- 'U. Repaint crosswalks ..,;„, • ',' >--.T. , ...,;"!-- >,.„-..4-, . III r- IF 'cc ,.,4,,,r.- 1 P' '..1- ,,,,... , ...:„e::. }r 4. : ...,4;..... ,,.'., 441 7 4 .1 G 1T:1.: ' '.6,.,' i..,,r ------ .• ...:.= 1 _. .**.2 0 ,, .'. . . -1!. ' ' 40kr t • " Vr-, ; =,:k • it.c 3 - Y..',..= 0 t e '`-3 - ;.:3 •--, .;.„,...., -' ••., . t •esslk:. , --5j- •---- ':: Replace bike racks , -..; '..k.• ,...". .;ii■-e'4'; /..,. :,...-..,,,, .,:j ..-7, - trg.W - . ' ' • _ -t:am;- , -2, -4:4-..r.".Pl'. $.'r, 4,-,:::::5( ''''!':';-. :''':-;1 - -. .:-..,,, ' ',•-• :, .,, _ . ... . itl:S7 ".i %.-`'.-.*•.--k"` (--ti. 4 j ' ,,. ,, •.,,,,f/,',., .., : ire; -1,: ,.4.-' -, ,.-, . -.' •I- • • .... STOP 7,0th:St----- -..., ... PS, ,..i.)1:,^.i. 7 1 '''''• L•".. • r- , 1462:•-■Zar, .1..'‘1.''','.---''' '''-'2. . ' •,.:,... :,..'-!%'.■ :'‹i l't‘'•5* E, .. . ., . ., . .--- . .„,41■-1 !. • -.,,.. . .-, • ...-:,,... -. --.-. ,ir-'''-', ,'',..igr,,, ,,. ..• . 1,,,i-- 1, .--'•..te, ,-- -. t, .-, _ %El ,6..dif',44k... • , r; ,,-, .- - .. i -- 1 I L, I ,. fr . .—, , ' >,,,-.,./ ,.., . _ -.:4, 'e '444.--:':rilt,k.: Richfield High School 1 ' ■ [ t,.,t ,` --..„‘ It ••I .• <---.*--:••,t17 r. ... v,r- 40, :),i: - . • •4". ' t :.., _• ' ! -* : ' ' •,\■ ir k Implement planned bicycle route , ,s-.•,,,.;.,,,,tr,-••• :, ,,,41•41frilA),•:..-4-14,4. •i 4 ..• -.. 10,,•••,. . , :4;',i, ii .,. 414` `6), --.1747.71,4--. '.. .;:.- --, , - . - , ' -1•< ,.....•.4.10r... ... • 5. ._ r.:6<:-...■, •• ,,,,,, . 'W4.1' • ' ).-SPr.. Ad ft - - •,et 7, •,t0.• ., 4116; '',.?;,••S''-`44rt 44-54;4: • 4 '3- ,. • ., ...: I ri - ,...... , 7.... - pl ,' ..,. • - .. ,t - , iii . _ .4t,,., -- — . . i, • I) '11 • - ..-..14,k. ',..-:, t, ;...... 1•-:::' r.. ..._' ,,,2...,;_`,..--, -;,.. ' '-- -...t,.,,,,.',...- ---?:,'s,tfir. • II 1.14. -i. : ''- ' -----_, ..------- 71st st. - ,..., ..r. .. ..... . , __air ) 4-...-. 1.1 A , I • '-' ' - --7----7----1-7- .,.„,...- 1, .v.%,,,,.---;::• 1 -. ., '1 t,itt--.1 - 1 - , -. - —4—.U...............:, . ' ,.. .- ..- _...•-. ''.- li . -.; -..: •14 • , . -- - c: .:c-,.. .-,,.. , NI .-• r-- ; - ;k4,Ir,•-.• r':' r'1",.."- ' ••• ' -f f'15# '-'. r'....,..,+:.-4 4.4•-,..-,','.-r.:.--,-.:A-".-,1,:/.4t„,i 0"7.-;7,;,.4.,.:.z1.5,,.....,,-,.,d.,.i..,-•./.:41.r.:..,r-...,..v.:,v.,',,,r t;_,•.._i.I i r.,',.-..'...,..•1._4.'—..„,..g ; ,-'.,,i.•.., 7-,--.- .-.-... — è /t1 1z1 1,. Implement planned off streettrail - . ,, 441,,,fottailt --.., •.4 ••A-Dr:-.• .,.:, .T4,...3.;ef -4";.11:'- -: ' •4 ,.- ' ','',. , - ''''?<,..0.:-' * Nfi:-.'''*,c flir'V-/0 I . fi,:'. 'fl. -,.., . i .. 1',V).,. 4,4:-.......,4' , • ....4..;* Mil l'. . - -r i4- ''• ,;_ ...._.... , ,..1. - --.-"' -'- '"7 -7-• — , 72nckSt ,- ....4:t....;:p. .-- - ' N- . . "Ir‘ - -. ; '','-''''''' ' ‘. Legend '!"..;,-4/t. ‘•r.... li.", l :. ',, ..._1' =ii,..tIltigr4 ' • . ,,,.._'- ' -*,,,,.t-•&.• - % . Signed Pedestrian Crossing •.-‘-''::.:. .',..; r,-.',1 T ,•' ..• .11 - '' - eir.. ....., ,,,,,,,.. ...... ., .. . ..,.. ...,, ,.. ., . .._ 4 . ,.. . . ,, ., •.4.,.. r , ;43 ,(,) *,....,-.t ..; *4-tr""t Qiiir;4-,k_. ,,v, - .--747,, ■ ' ._ :4 ,, . Traffic Signal . . '' ,r,, " '' . ' . ,..1..-. ..: .•.,' . .-- -, - , ,.---,c ./: -,„;, ,-.A.,,, t4,,.. 4,0,•,'Y'ri .:,k- -,..-•,- 1410- tt- ..- •••:- ti";. `V- /. -1'*.-t:'•t ' - ' -IT.- 1 .•:-:r ---,-,-.- ,...731:--e,=-Te- i. ---i-k• ,, ..11- „•-• ,4......,.., . ,.. vg 77i 3 Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection op.', , :, ; i'.,-.,:... - •••••.... k....?,4 0,-. ,,,...., , , •-,..•,-.■.-,...-..,.':v,,,,t,': ; -.,:.. ,\,..4,4;: ,.;,-2 1.3 f-f 1.., - ., •-.• ' 1 54, 415. ''' 4 5'.4.-r• S- 1.5''' ivid Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area iN,- .. ' ' ."••,0.3f '1.••••' , r ' e',11 11V-.? 'I• ...,Q, o, ... .06.1 L fik-14"4 V, t -IL .'• '''. '. ' ..;'''}'''':;. t '•ti,' • ‘`., --• - -- ' • ' . . '..s1,1-1 4' .el 1—,; _ s... -w :,fr:7•,. .I, -.:,:. ''.1-in, ' ,:e. Mr- -- -----e."-• ' -,-r--; '‘,” All-Way Stop Intersection -,,;:tt.. ,:.,,,:LI?:::-.'• .< ,,,r ••••:.'..•••••...,::=.}--.1., ...-." '4:41e, ., s .',.._' ;,-j-' 1,....,? vlskrr,. -i i--- - .. -J--. El Bicycle Racks jp..... ".,r--,:iCi;.. ', -...,,,,.•-., •,, i.:Tett, '7.i- ..,1;:f;- •-,1"..* - '. .:i . •ipilfrocTsil—r.*•t.„ o) 'I f . ,•,,,,-, 1 „ ,a ir••• ••-7..,... . .. ii rot\ . .. 1 tit-,. 7-6- 1._ ,... •-• a.) BMP Preferred Future On Street Route -1,411!I 1 V::.kr•-•-•',-•3'.. `1111 1111 .._.:r.;* '_--* I ...v - _ • Nosi BMP Preferred Future Trail Route .. -------- - •••‘4.•-I- 4,17 '• 11.,•,.,";.... ,...4., 1 .,,,4,.,_, ,- . ,- r. lk"Art.7.--.2.r. -.:• ' . rri ek',''';-k..'. ,--.1.i.:,',.',./lip .'• . 4 ,,', ,.:;''..'-' Fr Future Off Street Trail .• :" .• • -•.--,..• ,%.-1'.--_ ••',••• W a f-i, '. :`,.'• 1.‘..=-p_t: 4:.",---4-7)..... < t'Z t‘44:.'';' ;._•."-- 5.4k,IrC ..":'4 . 'ti i' . 'It Pr"' " ' s. " -5•• " .1.- ' 2c, .0.---...,' tr -i-':-,-,,,?,:r• -6 , It 1 `a "'. • - , .'" - •- 0 -I. ‘r.-i• .', - ' .ti s-4 '-2-- Enrollment: 1101 students .-n .:- , :,!..1 .:.-- , . 4. ,I '....r-•.: • ik1/4. .„. `.4.• . i I • 4?.. - •4. , ..,1 Nlumber in walk zone:626 students '.a! -. ... , .. •:., -,,, ..? . .,.. .,.. IMICIS-CrairK ), ( 'VA& ' -, .., . It -‘,.• -- il II 1111LIP:-W;.......... L".--A1116 '• -e.0.21,.,•, .- Off Streeekstt _ SOindeSwtrael TBriacyjicle Route I Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius p.--mri Kimley-Horn 1r -S1 1' ' N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 12. Richfield High School and Associates,Inc ' A 1■1 ] Recommendations Map as ' I '-i f—° �/c \ IColfaz-L-n rk-Nv L EL erg = _ " 16____ l'ol I_ 1 1 , aft ,; —1 T' 'TrTh _= J..�- - _ k- ,. ._G - - - - 62nd-st Icollet i I. y H a � ageD :h,-.' c m IA o Implement on street bicycle route on Sheridan/Russell �L I I I Park I .. i Q>. t - - - 63rd ->- -63rd S1-� Q> ¢ 1= 1_ - -I F34St - with connection to Sheridan Hills Elementary t .� ? I •�a I 63rd St---�I o Q �; tt II I � �` ir ��..64thsn....,; -Id 1 Q- 1- - I- I-sloth Sit-f 64th st ichfiel a I a -_ R _ �- _ —I — Ve — - 4th s .� ¢ „ -F4th•st - i m - 64ihlSt- I I d • . Q—±— t I -I I - `- 8C a � I I I ',�II :. Lake Park'', I I a I _p -� t,.. Sheridan Hills Elementa r, - 1 °' ,, m Park a a' d I I • ry i a o Q , I Implement planned sidewalk extension sa-r/z-st 2 -I '-a w' Ie a OOP t- ridan f I� t, �iI Park � ~1. °®@. o z Tiof,'o- t, i i 5 _n . � -G 6Ith-St-- Fstn' t ;� 5 II 65-1/7 S[ rl Y 11�._ _ Q _ .- thS he a i7. a 1snh st s earn st_ �a s7tnlst -1 M h '1 I _ ^ I j I a a i Forest or3 �Field '0 Qi ¢ iI I I I . °' - I •_ • 3. Park ' I J ■r¢'At 6am-st _ Q > _o . I I I 1 I I I ? Christian I ` _A ood Lake I r Q 6I`. St, - - - o- - -� re Cente / s4ti,st ," a Implement on street bicycle route with destination signing Park -608,St 69itrSt o yndale .a for Richfield Dual Language School,Richfield STEM ! I __? c Field h School.and Richfield High School ° loth st I }� u I p------g x I o s0°es ichfield Hi h School"—may zoth•st—.-Richfield Dual Language.School r, d �, 9 w Richfield S.T:EM.`School No iirSi a� o of a Augsburg nl 1 1 I 1 M. \\\ rt Gorge Rd- -7-tst-St---� r 7-ist St -Y -.I ,211 II Park —_� t + Y \ s.It a — - i o,-7.1 st-St r- - -r-t-�r----i Q - -7�st St-s--°. \a, r a I.', _ s,-- MSP —74-1.2 s; I Implement off-street trail on Pleasant Ave, �. I I rl ! I J I -7451-St I c 8 x Airport . > ,> ? >--d -- School t ^o I -. ■ - r—c,-.m 72nd5t I I_ ._I- I r --72nd-s.-- m 1, wa I I with connection to Richfield High 7zndSt-� " a.t • Adams I I I �� III ( 0'14 G<ovee a'. - g ii �r Legend 14111 Park i Q_ a t o>> i x' ti a = Z,, Q �, j73i -' -�' I QII c r� I - • �7� - _ o u ¢> 93F 713 Traffic Signal a L 121e:1:r �� o II - I All-Way Stop Intersection I � a 1 74th-shr O1 Richfield Middle,School- ro 74mst a ¢,-,-74hSi - --° f r Y .. o I� ® Recommended Pedestrian Im rovement Area m ° m o p' Donaldson j Flom nt ¢' ¢ - > a ? o 7 Park le a rI 7 , ;w u 75t S ar -, j'I, n. ,� Proposed Sidewalks '- �, m a Lc 3 ti L --�75tnst Q�— r I _—I I I I V ' BMP Preferred Future On Street Route it o n ,� 7i6thtst ^� ,_C - >*- - �. E BMP Preferred Future Trail Route m ."5- ✓' c i - 76th-St--1 x „,,,<3 ' ( - a 1�, I�i -..-7,7,th.SRoosevelt Future Off Street Trail 5` �_ Park �, I r -_-_ > R a 77th St _.•, �� c . . a i -. M_. .. -_-._Off Street Trail/�/ ��- c? r� 77-;;2-St ., cam, 1— _ `Q __-,_--_ 78;-,S0.5 �T �� i _ ;i— On Street Bicycle Route I .. - ,` =Snuthtosvn-Dr - - -_.o- __ - __ C _ Bic cl Dt >- , c'lo rDr ��-i ��_._ Sidewalks southtowm” ¢ 1 <""•+ _, i� I o a� a 1 Proposed Sidewalks I.:• c_ N Y 79th-S 1 �Q_ .- - -- C . �R�� E �--` o J'-American-Bled �Q ----r•-79-w-2�St— School Walk Boundary C -68th 6t--Vk j�--�C �,—_�.'--,— u_ L80tn-st T - - - J L— I ) _I Municipal Boundary �IrT I I -- , ' ¶1I1 ��,Kirnley-Horn 'r-4-5:= t I-, N and Associates.Inc. Si-t A 0 625 1,250 2soo Feet Figure 13.Richfield City-Wide /S Recommendations Map _____ - - - I CITY OF RICHFIELD ' 4 F 01, i/• • i I 1 P41- Safe Routes to School : ,. , 1 L -7 J, — Comprehensive.P an % ' ,,.-- - , 4SCHOOLIN Appendix A-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD outes to School Safe R t �� Com r�eherisive Student Travel Tally Results Modes To/From School(Fall 2012) Family School Walk Bike School Bus Vehicle Carpool Other AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Centennial 7% 9% 2% 2% 73% 78% 18% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield Dual 2% 2% 1% 1% 61% 69% 34% 27% 2% 1% 0% 0% Language Richfield STEM 4% 5% 1% 1% 59% 69% 35% 22% 1% 1% 0% 2% Sheridan Hills 4% 4% 0% 0% 62% 71% 33% 25% 1% 0% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield 7% 11% 5% 5% 59% 50% 26% 32% 2% 2% 1% 0% Middle A-2 mei CITY OF RICHEfELD . , r re Safe Routes;to School +_ Coir pr°eheirsrve P_an` �-- r _ - _ � scHOO� -� Parent Survey Results School Number of Survey Responses Centennial Elementary 0 Richfield Dual Language 73 Richfield STEM 156 Sheridan Hills 1 Elementary Richfield Middle School 1 Righfield High School 5 Total 236 Question 1.What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Percent of 0% 12% 15% 20% 22% 6% 22% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Respondents Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? Male Female Percent of Respondents 41% 59% Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Percent of Respondents 2% 46% 41% 10% 1% 0% Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? rrpsrr r cahool Family Carpool Other Vehicle (children (skateboard, Walk Bike School (only from Transit scooter, Bus children in other (city bus) inline skates, your families) etc.) family) Percent of 6% 1% 58% 34% 1% 0% 0% Respondents A-3 kli' Nei i/�% ..,. CITY OF RICHFIELD �; �' ego Safe Routes to Sehool '` # ', - Cain rehenlive Pla -_via _ L e= —. - SCHOOL IIL Question 6(continued). On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Leave from School Family Carpool Other Vehicle (children (skateboard, Walk Bike School (only from Transit scooter, Bus children in (city bus) other inline skates, your families) etc.) family) Percent of 6% 1% 58% 34% 1% 0% 0% Respondents Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? 'gel Time to Schoc• 5-10 11-20 More than <5 minutes Don't know minutes minutes 20 minutes Percent of 18/ Respondents ° 34% 31% 9% 8% 5-10 11-20 More than <5 minutes Don't know minutes minutes 20 minutes Percent of 17% 31% 35% 9% 8/ Respondents a Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? Yes No Percent of 19% 81% Respondents Question 9.At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ Percent of 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 12% 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% Respondents A-4 CITY OF RICHFIELD 4 i�/# ME Safe Routes to Schaal . -� Cauiprehensive,Plan".'. = Tsoo Lin a. Question 10. What of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow,your child to walk or bike to/from school? Percent of Issue Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 4% Distance 67% Convenience of Driving 13% Time 27% Before/After School Activities 15% Speed of Traffic 56% Amount of Traffic 61% Adults to Walk or Bike With 23% Sidewalks or Pathways 30% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 65% Crossing Guards 13% Violence or Crime 32% Weather or Climate 48% Percentages do not total 100%because respondents could select more than one issue. Question 11.Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 5% Distance 39% Convenience of Driving 11% Time 20% Before/After School Activities 16% Speed of Traffic 39% Amount of Traffic 42% Adults to Walk or Bike With 32% Sidewalks or Pathways 26% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 45% Crossing Guards 21% Violence or Crime 31% Weather or Climate 1% Percentages do not total 100%because respondents could select more than one issue. A-5 I — --- -- ,. ! - .. - -, . ,,,,;,. . ,,--:. 1 - a in CITY OF RICHFIELD j �- ," ` ,I Safe Routes to Seho L ; p1 , r i Coin reherisive Pla o', :;- _ Aool Question 12. In your opinion, how much does your child's school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? Strongly Encourages Neither Discourages Strongly Encourages Discourages Percent of 3% 20% 71% 5% 1% Respondents Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Fun Fun Neutral Boring Very Not Boring Applicable Percent of 7% 34% 50% 4% 2% 3% Respondents Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Healthy Healthy Neutral Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Percent of 41% 39% 18% 2% 0% Respondents Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? College Grades 9 Grade 12 1 to 3 College Graduate Grades 1 through or GED years 4 years or School Prefer 11 (Some School through 8 (Some (High college more (Masters not to (Elementary) school (College degree or answer S High ool) graduate) technical graduate) doctorate)or school) Percent of 6% 6% 11% 29% 40% 1% 7/° Respondents A-6 g CITY OF RICHFIELD i � ; h r I Safe Routes to School Coin r ehensive,Plan t 177, 1 P-- sox SCHOOL Resources 1. National Center for Safe Routes to School, Ongoing Activities guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/ongoing activities.cfm 2. Two Day Travel Tally, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-student-class-travel-tally 3. Parent Survey, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-parent-survey 4. Minnesota Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School resources and funding opportunities www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/ 5. Minnesota Public Health Law Center legal and liability resources http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/active-living/physical-activity-schools/resources 6. Examples of walking and biking curriculums for elementary and middle school students http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/elementary-srts-curriculum.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/middle-school-bicycle-education.pdf 7. Information and examples of pedestrian and bicycle safety campaigns http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local rural/pedcampaign/ http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/stats-and-research/research/bicycle-safety-campaign- review/ A-7 1 Public Health Law Center `` e Al WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OE LAW " ',r -.f MINNESOTA RECREATIONAL USE Liability Exposure for Schools Each school day presents new opportunities for students of all ages to practice healthy behaviors.Schools and school districts are improving student and community health through programs tailored to a community's individual needs and resources. Across Minnesota, school districts are updating their policies to include school wellness, Farm to School, Safe Routes to School programs, school gardens, and are entering into facilities use agreements to expand the recreational use of school property. Well-designed policies, led by knowledgeable and supportive staff,can advance student nutrition,increase physical activity,and help develop healthy lifestyles? While school districts are generally subject to liability Concerns about "liability" can keep schools from for their wrongful acts as well the acts of their implementing policies that would benefit students employees,fortunately,Minnesota law provides some and community members alike. significant protections. What is liability? ,M , M For purposes of this publication,liability can be defined M i as legal responsibility for another person's injury or M ; damages.There are numerous provisions within both .C `, state and federal law that serve as sources of potential - liability for school districts. However, when a school t district is considering allowing community use of its • - II --.ak. facilities for recreational activities, the possibility that , 1 someone who is using a school facility might suffer .�,L i an injury and bring a claim against the district (or its officers,employees,or agents) is arguably the district's v_ most significant liability �/ g �'concern. - The standards for holding someone liable differ '`� `, depending on who or what caused the injury. Typically, r: _ '',,-;--=:'"== •=` '� for a person to be held liable for someone else's injuries, = _' an injured person must first prove that the accused had _ `w; -- .5_ a legal responsibility to protect him or her from harm - r (otherwise known as"du ,t,,„.( "duty of care"). Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure for Schools I 2 Then,the injured person has to show that the accused party failed to protect him or her (or "breached"the _ duty of care) and as a result,was injured in an expected w (or"foreseeable") manner.' 14 The general expectation is that one will act reasonably a Now- toward others.' What is considered reasonable, .. .:.� .w..�` however,depends on the circumstances.Failure to act with as much care as an ordinary, reasonable person to • in a iven situation would is considered negligence.' = . ° ► g However,there are situations where a person or entity . ''�+' is held to a higher or lower standard. How are school districts protected from Local governments are generally immune from claims liability? based on the construction,operation,or maintenance Through governmental immunities. Immunities, of any property owned or leased for park or recreational provided both in state statutes4 and court decisions, purposes." School districts are also protected against protect school districts from liability for a variety claims arising from the use of school property or of claims. Two immunities are particularly relevant school facilities that are made available for public when developing policies that promote healthy, active recreational activities." Schools that fail to warn lifestyles. recreational users of known, hidden hazards may still be liable for injuries. First, school districts are shielded from liability that might arise from discretionary conduct.' Statutory Are teachers, coaches and other school discretionary immunity protects policy-making personnel protected as well? decisions that require considering factors such as Yes, school personnel are generally protected as well. budget, education, resources and safety.' For example, "Official immunity"protects individuals from personal a school district may adopt a policy stating that,due to liability for discretionary actions taken in the course limited resources and a desire to cultivate independence, of their official duties.13 This is intended to alleviate students are responsible for getting on the correct concerns that the fear of personal liability might bus at the end of the day.' Statutory discretionary deter independent action.14 School districts are also immunity protects school districts from having their generally required to defend and indemnify their decisions"second-guessed"by the courts.Discretionary employees if they are sued for something arising out conduct is distinguished from operational-level or of their employment.15 However, school personnel "ministerial" conduct. Operational activities that do are not protected for willful or malicious conduct,'" not involve exercising of discretion, such as following intentionally behaving in a way that is likely to cause an established plan,are not protected.' harm to another person. Additionally, teachers may not be protected for failing to responsibly perform Second, school districts are generally protected their regular duties.For example,a teacher who allows students to engage in dangerous play during recess from liability when injuries result from the may be liable if a child gets injured." recreational use of school property. Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure for Schools I 3 What steps can a school district take to reduce the risk of liability? There are a number of common sense precautions school districts can take to reduce their risk of liability. Some common risk management strategies include: • Creating clear policies that are based on a balancing of social,economic,financial and political factors. • Preserving a record of the decision-making process. • Training staff in regard to their roles in implementing policies. • Periodically reviewing policies and procedures,revising when necessary. • Eliminating known dangers where possible. • Documenting all precautions taken to avoid harm or risk. • Developing safety rules and handing them out to all students and parents.Rules should comply with any local rules,any local,state or federal laws,and any national standards. • Requiring parents or guardians of students to sign waivers before students participate in recreational activities.18 • Forming joint powers or facility use agreements with other public entities or community organizations that specifically outline acceptable uses of school property and facilities. • Obtaining liability insurance that covers lawsuits arising from injuries. Last updated-May 2013 Public Health Law Center AT IYILLIA..t MITCHELL COLLEGE OF L A The Publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center at William Mitchell College of Law,St.Paul,Minnesota,funded by the CDC's Community Transformation Grant initiative and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundations Active Living Research grant.(#69554). The Public Health Law Center provides information and technical assistance on issues related to public health.The Public Health Law Center does not provide legal representation or advice.This document should not be considered legal advice.For specific legal questions,consult with an attorney. Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure for Schools I 4 Endnotes 1 Lubbers v.Anderson,539 N.W.2d 398,401 (Minn.1995). 2 See Flom v.Flom,291 N.W2d 914,916 (Minn.1980);4 Minn.Prac.,Jury Instr.Guides--Civil CIVJIG 25.10(5th ed.2010). 3 See Baker v.Amtrak Nat.R.R.Passenger Corp.,588 N.W.2d 749,753 (Minn.Ct.App.1999). 4 minn.stat.§466.03(2012)(local governments);minn.stat.§3.736(2012)(state entities). "Common law"is developed through court decisions. 6 There are many protections available to schools and the distinctions between them can be difficult to understand.In an effort to simplify the topic of school liability,we have combined discussion of statutory discretionary immunity for municipalities as per minn.stat.§466.03,subd.3(2012),with discussion of common law and vicarious common law official immunity.Individual situations should be reviewed by an attorney. 7 See J.W.ex rel.B.R.W.v.287 Intermediate Dist.,761 N.W.2d 896,902(Minn.Ct.App.2009)(including consider- ation of safety issues,financial burdens,and possible legal consequences in decision-making). Pletan v.Gaines,494 N.W.2d 38,43-44(Minn.1992). 9 Holmquist v.State,425 N.W2d 230,232(Minn.1988). 10 minn.stat.§466.03,subd.6e(2012). 11 minn.stat.§ 466.03,subd.23 (2012). 12 Lishinski v.City of Duluth,634 N.W.2d 456,459-61 (Minn.Ct.App.2001). 13 Anderson v.Anoka Hennepin Indep.Sch.Dist.11,678 N.W.2d 651,660(Minn.2004). 14 Elwood v.Rice Cnty.,423 N.W.2d 671,678 (Minn.1988). is minn.stat.§466.07,subd.1 (2012). 16 Gleason v.Metro.Council Transit Operations,582 N.W.2d 216,220(Minn.1998). 17 Fear v.Indep.Sch.Dist.911,634 N.W.2d 204,215-16(Minn.Ct.App.2001). 18 While waivers are not a guarantee against liability,they may reduce the likelihood of being sued.For more informa- tion,please refer to the Public Health Law Center factsheet on Waivers and Releases,available at http://wwwpubli- chealthlawcenter.org/resources/minnesota-recreational-use Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 - - • ---- � PA 11 CITY OF CH 1i � j ° Safe a g- o ` o ' Cana reh-- Yore _ �. - -_- References 1 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 Adult Data Book,Survey of the Health of All the Population and the Environment, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2011. 2 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010—Child Survey Data Book, Minneapolis, Minnesota,April 2011. 3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 30, 2005. 4 2009 Traffic Volumes Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis. A-12 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 8.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 184 GA/, r CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SD OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City has two capital project funds where the projects have been completed. The two projects are the 77th Street Concrete project and the Lyndale Avenue Bridge project. The 77th Street Concrete Project work was completed in 2013 and all of the pertinent paperwork was completed in September, 2014 . The project currently has a negative balance of$264,122 and as such, funds must be transferred in to balance the account to zero. The source for those funds will be the Municipal State Aid (MSA)fund. This is a MSA eligible project and the MSA Fund has adequate balance to do so. The second project fund to be closed out is the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project which was completed in 2009. This project fund has been held open while the Engineering Division has spent a lengthy period of time attempting to gain all eligible state and federal funding available for the project. Through this excellent effort substantial additional funds were recently received and the project is ready to be closed. This project account reflects a positive balance of$580,854, which will be transferred to the MSA Fund which is the most appropriate fund to receive these funds. For the purposes of the Engineering Division and our financial records, these projects should now be closed out. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:Approve the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Lyndale Avenue Bridge capital project fund was established to account for the reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge.The 77th Street Concrete project was established to account for concrete joint repair on 77th Street. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The City's financial policies do not directly address the closing out of City funds. • The City's auditors have recommended that non-budgeted transfers between funds be approved by the City Council. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no critical timing issues. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The following tables reflect the funds to close and the corresponding funding sources or recipients. Fund to Close Balance Funding Source Amount 77th Street Concrete (264,122) MSA Fund 264,122 Fund to Close Balance Funding Recipient Amount Lyndale Avenue Bridge 580,854 MSA Fund 580,854 E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Consultation with the City Attorney was not necessary. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • The City Council can choose to approve all, part or none of the proposed fund closings. • City Council can direct staff to seek alternative funding sources to close certain funds. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: N/A AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 8.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 185 GCtiir CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Regis, Finance Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SD OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a $563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ice Arena, along with the Swimming Pool and Special Facility operations comprises the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund. At the conclusion of the 2013 audit process, the City's auditors, KDV, recommended reclassifying the Recreation Enterprise Fund operations to a Special Revenue Fund. The basis for this recommendation is the operating revenues generated by the Recreation Enterprise Fund are consistently not covering the operating expenses of the fund. Therefore, the fund is not truly operating as an enterprise fund. As part of the process to reclassify the Recreation Enterprise Fund, the outstanding principal balance plus accrued interest of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 (Series 1999 bonds) must first be retired. Governmental accounting principles will not allow governmental funds to record bonded debt within the fund. At the present time the City's Ice Arena operation has an outstanding principal balance of$685,000 for the Series 1999 bonds. In addition, there is accrued interest payable in the amount of$12,333 for a total owed of $697,333. In order to facilitate the retirement of the Series 1999 bonds, staff is recommending the City use the call provision included in the bond documents and authorize an internal loan of$563,213 from the City's Golf Course fund and the utilization of the existing Series 1999 bond reserve of$134,120 to fund the call of the outstanding principal and accrued interest. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a$563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • The Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds,Series 1999,were issued to fund the construction of Rink 2 at the Ice Arena facility. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • Pursuant to Section 7.12,Subd.7,of the City Charter,the City Council may make internal loans by resolution. • The bond documents of the Series 1999 bonds include a provision to call the bonds any time after February 1, 2009. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The planned call date is December 5,2014. • Holders of the bonds will be notified of the City's intention to call the bonds. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The current outstanding principal balance of the Series 1999 bonds is$685,000.The accrued interest outstanding is$12,333 for a total due of$697,333. • Funding to retire the bonds will be provided by the following: Internal Loan $563,213 Existing Bond Reserve $134,120 Total $697,333 • The loan period will be for six years,the same amount of time remaining on the existing bonds. • The interest rate will be established at 1%,as compared to an average of 5.23%on the existing bonds. • The loan will be repaid with revenues generated from Ice Arena operations. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • Holders of the Series 1999 bonds have been notified of the City's intention to call the bonds. • Procedures related to City Charter Section 7.12 have been followed and completed. • The City attorney has reviewed the resolutions to call the bonds and to establish an internal loan. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): There are no alternative recommendations. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution to Call the Bonds Resolution Letter • Ice Arena Internal Loan Resolution Resolution Letter CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT AND REDEMPTION OF THE CITY'S GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS,SERIES 1999 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. The City has previously issued and sold its Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 (the"Bonds"), dated as of May 1, 1999, in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,660,000, of which $685,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding. Bonds maturing on or after February 1,2010 are subject to call for prior redemption on February 1, 2009 or on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part, and if in part,at the option of the City and in such order as the City will determine and within a maturity selected by U.S. Bank National Association (successor-in-interest to Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A.), Saint Paul, Minnesota, acting as the registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. 2. It is determined that it is in the best interests of the sound financial management of the City that Bonds maturing on February 1, 2017 and thereafter, comprising all of the Bonds subject to redemption, be prepaid and redeemed on December 5, 2014 (or on the first date thereafter for which the Registrar of the Bonds can provide proper notice to the holders of the Bonds), and those Bonds are hereby called for redemption on that date in the aggregate principal amount of$685,000. 3. The Registrar is authorized and directed to mail notice of call for redemption of the Bonds in the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A to the registered owners of the Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October,2014. Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs,City Clerk 451112v1 JAE RC145-355 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $1,660,000 CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS SERIES 1999 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota(the"City"),there have been called for redemption and prepayment on December 5,2014 all outstanding bonds of the City designated as the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, dated as of May 1, 1999, having a stated maturity date of February 1 in the years 2017 through 2020, both inclusive, totaling$685,000 in principal amount, and with the following CUSIP numbers: Year of Maturity Amount CUSIP 2017 $315,000 763332 AS2 2020 370,000 763332 AV5 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to December 5, 2014, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main office of U.S. Bank National Association (successor-in-interest to Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A.), in the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, at the following address, on or before December 5,2014: If by mail: If by hand or overnight: U.S. Bank National Association U.S.Bank National Association Corporate Trust Operations, 3rd Floor 60 Livingston Avenue P.O. Box 64111 EP-MN-WS3C St. Paul,MN 55164-0111 Bond Drop Window, 1st Floor St. Paul,MN 55107 Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate in effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your social security number or federal employer identification number,properly certified. This requirement is fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other financial institution. Dated: ,2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA By /s/ Steven Devich City Manager City of Richfield,Minnesota 451112v1 JAE RC145-355 A-1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I,the undersigned,being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield,Minnesota (the"City"),do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on Tuesday, October 28,2014,with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the prepayment and redemption of the City's Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999,issued in the original aggregate principal amount of$1,660,000. WITNESS My hand as City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of ,2014. City Clerk City of Richfield,Minnesota (SEAL), a 451112v1 JAE RC145-355 RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING $563,213 INTERNAL LOAN TO RETIRE THE GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999 WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for the City Council to make internal loans by resolution; and WHEREAS, the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, will facilitate the reclassification of the Recreation Enterprise Fund, and WHEREAS, the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, were issued under Minnesota Statute 471.191, and WHEREAS, the funding for the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, will be provided by an internal loan from the City's Golf Course Fund, and WHEREAS, repayment of the internal loan will be provided by revenues generated by the Ice Arena operation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an internal loan from the City's Golf Course Fund to the Ice Arena operation to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. 2. The term of the loan will be six (6) years in the amount of$563,213 at 1% interest. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 8.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 186 GCer##d CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving subdivision of the remnant parcels at 6245 &6301 Bloomington Avenue and approving first read of transitory ordinances authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City purchased 6245 Bloomington Avenue, 6301 Bloomington Avenue, and 6300 16th Avenue for right-of- way as part of the Richfield Parkway Connection project. The alignment of the new roadway created remnants of 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Ave. that are larger than what the City has determined is necessary for long- term right-of-way needs. The property owners adjacent to these remnant parcels, at 6239 Bloomington Avenue and 6305 Bloomington Avenue, approached the City with an interest in purchasing a portion of these remnants. Property owners at 6239 Bloomington Avenue South and 6305 Bloomington Avenue South have signed purchase agreements for their desired remnant parcels. In addition, the Planning Commission passed the attached required resolution finding that the sale of the remnant parcel is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the attached resolution approving subdivision of the land at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South. 2. Approve the attached resolution approving subdivision of the land at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South. 3. Approve the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield and schedule the public hearing and second reading for November 25,2014. 4. Approve the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of land located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield and schedule the public hearing and second reading for November 25, 2014. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • The establishment of Richfield Parkway as a vehicular and greenway corridor extending from the City's northern border is an identified goal of the Comprehensive Plan. • The area has been identified as a future greenway since the adoption of the Cedar Avenue Corridor Master Plan in 2004. • The construction of the Richfield Parkway connection in 2013 between Bloomington Avenue and 17th Avenue (now completely Richfield Parkway)contributed to that goal. • Staff determined that after construction, excess right-of-way exists in this area to facilitate a property sale to adjacent property owners. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • City Code Section 500.03, Subd. 2, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 • City Charter Section 13.04, requires that no real property of the City shall be disposed of except by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • Buyers would like to complete sales in 2014. • Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The purchase price for both remnant parcels have been approved by the City Manager. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the sale process and the attached documents and will be in attendance at the Council meeting should questions arise. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Council may choose to not approve the subdivisions or sales. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type d 6245 Ordinance Ordinance a 6301 Ordinance Ordinance a 6245 SubDiv Resolution Resolution Letter 13 6301 SubDiv Resolution Resolution Letter d 6245 Purchase Agreement Contract/Agreement ❑ 6301 Purchase Agreement Contract/Agreement d PC Resolution Exhibit ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6245 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01 The City of Richfield("City") is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02 The City owns certain property located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); 1.03. The City purchased the Property for public purposes as part of a larger tract, but the portion thereof which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto is not required for that public purpose and is not anticipated to be needed in the future for any public purpose; 1.04. The City, as Seller, and Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh, husband and wife, as Purchasers, have entered into a purchase agreement, subject to City Council approval, under which it is proposed that the City sell the Property to the Purchasers for a purchase price of$2,133.80; 1.05. The Property is an uneconomic remnant which the City Director of Public Works has recommended be sold to the Purchasers as provided in said purchase agreement. 1.06. The Purchasers own the real estate adjacent to the Property. 1.07. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Property to the Purchasers. Section 2. Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The sale of the Property to the Purchasers is hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of the purchase agreement on file with the City Clerk. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the purchase agreement, the deed and any other documents recommended by the City Attorney in furtherance of the conveyance ofthe Property to Purchasers as provided in the purchase agreement. -1- 447577v3 RJL RC145-681 2.02. This Ordinance shall take effect after the thirtieth (30th) day following adoption and publication, exclusive of the day of publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SEAL -2- 447577v3 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT A Le2a1 Description of Property That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 EXHIBIT B Parcel Sketch of Portion of Property To Be Conveyed 2 cn se ,...; ._, to 1 i ■ [ iff! :II , ILI ° r-i 1 0 .. : o f3 _1 F 1 g 4#1.64, 1 tl ,i.. ■.7,6.„ 0 .-t. 0? , 1 L., = 0•d, er 0 r- .... cn i 0 (..) a2 co cn 0 0 C. cf, 60 C.) m--, on_ 0, LI C CD a) c L'.• '- •,.. ...J 0 (1.) , = I- _., CO • 0 ,,, 010°--CP ...., ..= o ! RI C o 0— CI •— el• --go 0 -..... I...=.• 0= •—• C0 vr 010 al E g .2 g as 0) 15 = ci, II pc Z.5 a CP L., - .rft.' 2-- cr. 7 / 4 t i•- .!4 7 [ _ . IA r I .. '... n l . , t iii4. 1.1 1%) B-1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6301 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01 The City of Richfield ("City")is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02. The City owns certain property located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto ("Property"); 1.03. The City purchased the Property for public purposes as part of a larger tract, but the portion thereof which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto is not required for that public purpose and is not anticipated to be needed in the future for any public purpose; 1.04. The City, as Seller, and Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen, husband and wife, as Purchasers, have entered into a purchase agreement, subject to City Council approval, under which it is proposed that the City sell the Property to the Purchasers for a purchase price of$1,522.80; 1.05. The Property is an uneconomic remnant which the City Director of Public Works has recommended be sold to the Purchasers as provided in said purchase agreement. 1.06. The Purchasers own the real estate adjacent to the Property. 1.07. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Property to the Purchasers. Section 2. Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The sale of the Property to the Purchasers is hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of the purchase agreement on file with the City Clerk. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the purchase agreement, the deed and any other documents recommended by the City Attorney in furtherance of the conveyance of 1 447584v3 RJL RC145-682 the Property to the Purchasers as provided in the purchase agreement. 2.02. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day following its adoption and publication, exclusive of the day of publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SEAL 2 447584v3 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 20,Block 10,Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 447584v3 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT B Parcel Sketch of Pro 1 er li f I Z I o a 0 P1 p m 1 sc at N m _al o r I 1 l 1-414:04,,,.-li. 1 11/1:// /7)Nlij il5' ' /11 /111 il I _A. 1 i i / . / :. . ,. cii /7/ hi cri d 4 a o a ri '2,g .0 ¶51 m //A 1 „ pit Ii 11 1 5\\\N„ ...a ! _ I c y I z � _ / l ` b— r — •-- � � .pDTlilys SIDS 40.sKsd4Y11E10N4 B-1 447584v3 RJL RC 145-682 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6245 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT., SECTION 462.358, SUBD. 4b(a)AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of the real estate located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South, in the City of Richfield, which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property for public purposes, but has concluded that the portion of the Property which is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto ("Portion") is not required for said public purposes and is not foreseen to be required for public purposes in the future, and wishes to subdivide the Property and convey the Portion to the adjacent owner; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is recommended by the City Director of Public Works and the City Director of Community Development; WHEREAS, Section 500.03, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357.; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, provides that no conveyance of land that constitutes a subdivision within the meaning of Section 500 may be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. la, City Code of Ordinances, provides that Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, does not apply to a conveyance if the land described... (g) is an adjustment of a lot line by relocation of a common boundary, where the 1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 conveyance does not create an additional lot or space sufficient to construct an additional residence thereon; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances,provides that, in any case in which compliance with Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, will result in an unnecessary hardship, and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations of Section 500, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect, and the conveyance may then be recorded; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) provides that in a municipality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded as provided in Section 462.358, no conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds. However, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(c)provides that the City, as platting authority, may waive compliance with the requirements of Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) so that the conveyance may by recorded, if compliance with Subd. 4b(a) will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162, Subd. 1 provides that when a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under Sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in Section 272.12, if: (a) the land conveyed is less than a whole parcel as charged in the tax lists; (b) the part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under Section 462.36, Subdivision 1; and (c) the part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in Section 462.352, Subdivision 12; 2 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subd. 12 defines "subdivision" to mean"the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, (or) lots, ... except those separations ... (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary; " WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Portion is an uneconomic remnant, that it is in the best interests of the public and the City that the remnant be consolidated with the adjacent property, that such conveyance is simply an adjustment of a common boundary line between two adjacent properties, that it would be an unnecessary hardship for the current owner of the Property and the adjacent owner to whom it is proposed that the Portion be conveyed if subdivision of the Property were denied, and that failure to comply with the provisions of the City's subdivision regulations will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; WHEREAS, Section 500.27, City Code of Ordinances, requires that whenever a copy of a preliminary or final plat or subdivision is filed with the City for approval, published notice shall be given in the official newspaper of the City of a public hearing to be held not less than ten (10) days thereafter. At such hearing, all persons interested therein may be heard and the City Council may thereafter approve or disapprove the plat or subdivision. Subdivisions, after approval, may be recorded as provided by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Council concerning the proposed subdivision, after due notice in accordance with Section 500.27 of the City Code of Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Subdivision of the Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, between the Portion which is described in Exhibit B attached hereto and the remainder of the Property, is hereby approved. 3 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 2. Compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) and Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances is hereby waived with respect to subdivision of the Property described herein. 3. This resolution is intended to satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162 and Section 462.358, Subd.4b, as well as Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Attorney shall file a certified copy of this resolution against the title of the Property at the time of conveyance of the Portion which is described in Exhibit B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2014. Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 4 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property(Real Estate To Be Subdivided) Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Address; 6245 Bloomington, Avenue. South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 A-1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Real Estate To Be Conveyed That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. B-1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT C Parcel Sketch Depicting Portion of the Property To Be Conveyed To Adjacent Owner pC -o no Y O {+ ui .. ri co C. 1 -1b. is v 1 i r /(lyy V O ,� Ir r V m x m Y hi 2 m Z _O B ' , d R Q O —, co to C Q K ra uc -0 ,v Ce 00 = tea'�i O N O w EA o ..... f a m pl� St.%li `9^� / E "4'r hg �e i4 - Y 1 _ - _ �, . • iv) i ` R a 3 i i s. �L 4 f i3 Li, C-1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6301 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT. SECTION 462.358, SUBD.4b(a)AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of the real estate located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, in the City of Richfield, which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property for public purposes, but has concluded that the portion of the Property which is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto ("Portion") is not required for said public purposes and is not foreseen to be required for public purposes in the future, and wishes to subdivide the Property and convey the Portion to the adjacent owner; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is recommended by the City Director of Public Works and the City Director of Community Development; WHEREAS, Section 500.03, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, provides that no conveyance of land that constitutes a subdivision within the meaning of Section 500 may be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. la, City Code of Ordinances, provides that Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, does not apply to a conveyance if the land described... (g) is an adjustment of a lot line by relocation of a common boundary, where the 1 447528v2 RJL RC 145-682 conveyance does not create an additional lot or space sufficient to construct an additional residence thereon; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances,provides that, in any case in which compliance with Section 500.05, Subd.1, City Code of Ordinances, will result in an unnecessary hardship, and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations of Section 500, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect, and the conveyance may then be recorded; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd.4b(a) provides that in a municipality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded as provided in Section 462.358, no conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds. However, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(c)provides that the City, as platting authority, may waive compliance with the requirements of Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) so that the conveyance may by recorded, if compliance with Subd. 4b(a) will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162, Subd. 1 provides that when a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under Sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in Section 272.12, if: (a) the land conveyed is less than a whole parcel as charged in the tax lists; (b) the part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under Section 462.36, Subdivision 1; and (c) the part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in Section 462.352, Subdivision 12; 2 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subd. 12 defines "subdivision" to mean "the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, (or) lots, ... except those separations ... (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary; " WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Portion is an uneconomic remnant, that it is in the best interests of the public and the City that the remnant be consolidated with the adjacent property, that such conveyance is simply an adjustment of a common boundary line between two adjacent properties, that it would be an unnecessary hardship for the current owner of the Property and the adjacent owner to whom it is proposed that the Portion be conveyed if subdivision of the Property were denied, and that failure to comply with the provisions of the City's subdivision regulations and waiver of compliance with the provisions thereof will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; WHEREAS, Section 500.27, City Code of Ordinances, requires that whenever a copy of a preliminary or final plat or subdivision is filed with the City for approval, published notice shall be given in the official newspaper of the City of a public hearing to be held not less than ten (10) days thereafter. At such hearing, all persons interested therein may be heard and the City Council may thereafter approve or disapprove the plat or subdivision. Subdivisions, after approval,may be recorded as provided by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Council concerning the proposed subdivision, after due notice in accordance with Section 500.27 of the City Code of Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 3 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 1. Subdivision of the Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, between the Portion which is described in Exhibit B attached hereto and the remainder of the Property, is hereby approved. 2. Compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) and the provisions of Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances is hereby waived with respect to subdivision of the Property as described herein. 3. This resolution is intended to satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162 and Section 462.358, Subd.4b, as well as Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Attorney shall file a certified copy of this resolution against the title of the Property at the time of conveyance of the Portion which is described in Exhibit B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this_day of 2014 Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 4 447528v2 RJL RC 145-682 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property(Real Estate To Be Subdivided) Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Property Address: 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, Richfield,MN 55423 A-1 447528v2 RJL RC 145-682 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Real Estate To Be Conveyed That part of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. B-1 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT C Parcel Sketch Depicting Portion of Property To Be Conveyed to Adjacent Owner K e k i_. bp r M Q a 1 Z t o a V f i di m �a di . c If D j I j i 1 'i 1 '- 4.k' 4,-.,_ 4 1 14 r l � a -/ I ''. . /Ji r� /1/// . /11 i i ''''': 7 o a go / V Q Y ra / R., A I En..e> ' tt) - -o F- E al xi 19 T cc ;,..../ U pJp ce U iii g - 1:::,,,/ y eq Ow Far f cfl i i q it a RI )1 1 jj JIU• 4— r _ .... .firi It a M}PpsAMri,myfeO+'M C-1 447528v2 RHL RC145-682 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this day of ,2014,by and between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Seller") and Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh,husband and wife Buyer"). RECITALS Seller is the owner of property located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South, in Richfield Minnesota,Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A("Property"). The Property is vacant land. No personal property is included in the sale. AGREEMENT 1. Offer/Acceptance for Sale of Property. The Seller agrees to sell to Buyer the Property and Buyer agrees to purchase the same,according to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price for Property and Terms. A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three and 80/100ths Dollars ($2,133.80) (the "Purchase Price"). B. TERMS: (1): EARNEST MONEY. The sum of Three Hundred and 00/100ths Dollars ($300.00) (the"Earnest Money") shall be paid by Buyer to Seller. (2): BALANCE DUE SELLER. Buyer agrees to pay by check or electronic transfer of funds on the date of closing on the Property (the "Closing Date") the remaining balance of the Purchase Price due to Seller according to the terms of this Agreement. (3): DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations. b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota, if any. c. Public utility and drainage easements of record. 1 445619v3 CBRRC145-681 1 (4): DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the Quit Claim Deed required at paragraph 2B(3) above, Seller shall deliver to Buyer: a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller. b. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national. c. Well disclosure certification,if required, or,if there is no well on the Property, the Quit Claim Deed given pursuant to paragraph 2B(3) above must include the following statement: "The Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property." d. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer's title insurance company or attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of this Agreement. 3. Buyer's Contingencies. Buyer's obligation to buy is contingent upon the following: a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Agreement; b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, that the results of any environmental investigation of the Property conducted pursuant to this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer; Buyer shall have the period provided in paragraph 5 below to remove contingency a., and fifteen (15) days to remove contingency b., provided that these contingencies are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer or its attorney gives written notice to Seller that the contingencies at a. and b. are duly satisfied or waived, Buyer and Seller shall proceed to close the transaction as contemplated herein. If one or more of Buyer's or Seller's contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived,this Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of Buyer and Seller shall return the Earnest Money, if any,to Buyer, and Buyer and Seller shall execute and deliver to each other a termination of this Agreement. As a contingent Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 559.21, et. seq. 4. Seller's Contingencies. Seller's obligation to sell is contingent upon the following: a. Approval of this Agreement by the Richfield City Council; 2 445619v3 CBRRC145-681 b. Approval of the lot split required for this conveyance by the Richfield City Council; and c. Lot combination for tax purposes with Buyer's property lying adjacent to the Property. Seller's contingencies may not be waived. 5. Title Examination/Curing Title Defects. As soon as reasonably possible after execution of this Agreement by both parties, Buyer shall obtain the title evidence determined necessary or desirable by Buyer. The Buyer shall have thirty (30) days from the date it receives such title evidence to raise any objections to title. Objections not made within such time will be deemed waived. The Seller may affect a cure satisfactory to Buyer or may give written notice to Buyer that Seller elects not to cure. The Buyer may then elect to close notwithstanding the uncured objections, or may declare this Agreement null and void and the parties will thereby be released from any further obligation hereunder. 6. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes payable in the year of closing will be pro-rated between Buyer and Seller to the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes payable in previous years, the entire unpaid balance of special assessments, and all installments of special assessments levied and pending,including special assessment installments payable after the year of closing. If closing occurs prior to the date the amount of real estate taxes due in the year of closing are available from Hennepin County,the current year's taxes will be pro- rated based on the amount due in the prior year. 7. Closing Date. The Closing Date will be on or before , 2014. Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made by mail or electronic mail, or at the offices of Seller, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, or at such other location as is mutually agreed upon by the parties. 8. Possession The Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than the Closing Date. 9. Seller Warranties. (a) Mechanics' Liens, Seller warrants that,prior to the closing, Seller shall pay in full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the Property. (b) Notices. Seller warrants that it has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in connection with the Property. (c) Tenants. Seller warrants that the Property is not now occupied by tenants and was not occupied by tenants at the time Seller first received Buyer's written offer to purchase the Property. 3 445619v3 CBR RC145-681 10. Closing Costs/Recording Fees/Deed Tax. The Buyer will pay: (a)the closing fees charged by the title insurance or other closing agent, if any, utilized to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement; (b) fees for title evidence obtained by Buyer; and(c) the recording fee for the deed transferring title to Buyer. Seller will pay(a) any transfer taxes and Well Disclosure fees required to enable Buyer to record its deed from Seller under this Agreement (b)fees and charges related to the filing of any instrument required to make title marketable. Each party shall pay its own attorney fees. 11. Inspections. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and testing of groundwater monitoring wells, as Buyer shall elect;provided,that Seller is given at least 24 hours' notice. 12. Risk of Loss. If there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof and the Closing Date, for any reason, including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act of God, the risk of loss shall be on Seller. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, this Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option. At the request of Buyer, Seller agrees to sign a cancellation of Agreement. 13. Default/Remedies. If Buyer defaults in any of the covenants herein, Seller may terminate this Agreement, and on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller as liquidated damages, time being of the essence. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right to enforce specific performance of this Agreement,provided this Agreement has not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months after such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in its performance of the terms of this Agreement and Notice of Cancellation is served upon Buyer pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Minn. Stat., Section 559.21, Subd. 4. 14. Disclosures Required by Law. The following disclosures/provisions are required by law: a) Wells. Seller certifies that Seller does not know of a well on the Property. b) Storage Tanks, Seller discloses that, to the best of Seller's knowledge, there are no above-ground or underground storage tanks located in, on, or under the Property. c) Septic System. Seller discloses that any sewage generated on the Property will go to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency("MPCA"). d) Statutory Methamphetamine Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 152.0275, Seller certifies that as of the date hereof no methamphetamine production has occurred on the property. 15. Broker Commission. Each party represents to the other that it has not utilized the services of any real estate broker or agent in connection with this Agreement or the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the 4 445619v3 CBRRC145-681 other party against and in respect of any such obligation and liability based in any way upon agreements, arrangements, or understandings made or claimed to have been made by the party with any third person. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: SELLER: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield,MN 55423 With Copy to: Kennedy&Graven, Chartered ATTN: Robert Lindall and Catherine B. Rociclitz 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 BUYER: Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh 6239 Bloomington Ave. So. Richfield,MN 55423 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, Exhibits, and other amendments signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire Agreement between Seller and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the Property. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Seller and Buyer. { IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year above. Seller: City of Richfield Buyer: OPP° By: ./`/ Its Mayor Ou 'eheuane Sengsour'c anh 6' ' And by: Keo Sengsouricha Its City Manager 5 [€ 445619v3 CBRRC145-681 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. li { t€� 6 445619v3 CBR RC145-681 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Seller") and Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen, husband and wife("Buyer"). RECITALS Seller is the owner of property located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, in Richfield Minnesota,Minnesota,which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A ("Property"). The Property is vacant land. No personal property is included in the sale. AGREEMENT 1. Offer/Acceptance for Sale of Property. The Seller agrees to sell to Buyer the Property and Buyer agrees to purchase the same,according to the terms of this Agreement, 2. Purchase Price for Property and Terms. A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Two and 80/100ths Dollars ($1,522.80) (the "Purchase Price"). B. TERMS: (1): EARNEST MONEY. The sum of Three Hundred and 00/100ths Dollars ($300.00) (the"Earnest Money") shall be paid by Buyer to Seller. (2): BALANCE DUE SELLER. Buyer agrees to pay by check or electronic transfer of funds on the date of closing on the Property (the "Closing Date") the remaining balance of the Purchase Price due to Seller according to the terms of this Agreement. (3): DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations. b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota, if any. c. Public utility and drainage easements of record. 1 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 (4): DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the Quit Claim Deed required at paragraph 2B(3) above, Seller shall deliver to Buyer: a. Standard form Affidavit of Seiler. } b. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national. c. Well disclosure certification,if required, or, if there is no well on the Property, the Quit Claim Deed given pursuant to paragraph 2B(3) above must include the following statement: "The Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property." d. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer's title insurance company or attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of this Agreement. 3. Buyer's Contingencies. Buyer's obligation to buy is contingent upon the following: a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Agreement; b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, that the results of any environmental investigation of the Property conducted pursuant to this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer; Buyer shall have the period provided in paragraph 5 below to remove contingency a., and fifteen (15) days to remove contingency b., provided that these contingencies are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer or its attorney gives written notice to Seller that the contingencies at a. and b. are duly satisfied or waived, Buyer and Seller shall proceed to close the transaction as contemplated herein. If one or more of Buyer's or Seller's contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived,this Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of Buyer and Seller shall return the Earnest Money, if any, to Buyer, and Buyer and Seller shall execute and deliver to each other a termination of this Agreement. As a contingent Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 559.21,et.seq. 4. Seller's Contingencies. Seller's obligation to sell is contingent upon the following: a. Approval of this Agreement by the Richfield City Council; } 2 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 b. Approval of the lot split required for this conveyance by the Richfield City Council; and c. Lot combination for tax purposes with Buyer's property lying adjacent to the Property. Seller's contingencies may not be waived. 5. Title Examination/Curing Title Defects. As soon as reasonably possible after execution of this Agreement by both parties, Buyer shall obtain the title evidence determined necessary or desirable by Buyer. The Buyer shall have thirty (30) days from the date it receives such title evidence to raise any objections to title. Objections not made within such time will be deemed waived. The Seller may affect a cure satisfactory to Buyer or may give written notice to Buyer that Seller elects not to cure. The Buyer may then elect to close notwithstanding the uncured objections, or may declare this Agreement null and void and the parties will thereby be released from any further obligation hereunder. 6. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes payable in the year of closing will be pro-rated between Buyer and Seller to the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes payable in previous years, the entire unpaid balance of special assessments, and all installments of special assessments levied and pending, including special assessment installments payable after the year of closing. If closing occurs prior to the date the amount of real estate taxes due in the year of closing are available from Hennepin County,the current year's taxes will be pro- rated based on the amount due in the prior year. 7, Closing Date. The Closing Date will be on or before , 2014. Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made by mail or electronic mail, or at the offices of Seller, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, or at such other location as is mutually agreed upon by the parties. 8. Possession The Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than the Closing Date. i'. 9. Seller Warranties. (a) Mechanics' Liens. Seller warrants that,prior to the closing, Seller shall pay in full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the Property. (b) Notices. Seller warrants that it has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in connection with the Property. (c) Tenants. Seller warrants that the Property is not now occupied by tenants and was not occupied by tenants at the time Seller first received Buyer's written offer to purchase the Property. 3 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 10. Closing Costs/Recording Fees/Deed Tax. The Buyer will pay:(a)the closing fees charged by the title insurance or other closing agent, if any, utilized to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement; (b)fees for title evidence obtained by Buyer; and(c) the recording fee for the deed transferring title to Buyer. Seller will pay(a) any transfer taxes and Well Disclosure fees required to enable Buyer to record its deed from Seller under this Agreement (b)fees and charges related to the filing of any instrument required to make title marketable. Each party shall pay its own attorney fees. 11. Inspections. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and testing of groundwater monitoring wells, as Buyer shall elect; provided,that Seller is given at least 24 hours' notice. 12. Risk of Loss. If there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof and the Closing Date, for any reason, including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act z of God, the risk of loss shall be on Seller. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, this Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option. At the request of Buyer, Seller agrees to sign a cancellation of Agreement. 13. Default/Remedies. If Buyer defaults in any of the covenants herein, Seller may terminate this Agreement, and on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller as liquidated damages, time being of the essence. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right to enforce specific performance of this Agreement,provided this Agreement has not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months after such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in its performance of the terms of this Agreement and Notice of Cancellation is served upon Buyer pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Minn. Stat., • Section 559.21, Subd.4. 14. Disclosures Required by Law. The following disclosures/provisions are required by law: a) Wells. Seller certifies that Seller does not know of a well on the Property. b) Storage Tanks. Seller discloses that, to the best of Seller's knowledge, there are no s above-ground or underground storage tanks located in, on, or under the Property. i c) Septic System. Seller discloses that any sewage generated on the Property will go to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency("MPCA"). } d) Statutory Methamphetamine Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 152.0275, Seller certifies that as of the date hereof no methamphetamine production has occurred on the property. 15. Broker Commission. Each party represents to the other that it has not utilized the services of any real estate broker or agent in connection with this Agreement or the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the 4 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 other party against and in respect of any such obligation and liability based in any way upon agreements, arrangements, or understandings made or claimed to have been made by the party with any third person. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: SELLER: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield,MN 55423 With Copy to: Kennedy& Graven, Chartered ATTN: Robert Lindall and Catherine B. Rocklitz 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 BUYER: Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen 6305 Bloomington Avenue South Richfield,MN 55423 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, Exhibits, and other amendments signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire Agreement between Seller and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the Property. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Seller and Buyer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year above. Seller:City of Richfield Buy- / /f By: Its Mayor Craig D. Olsen And by: _ `Sarah L. Olsen Its City Manager 5 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet;thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. fl } kp 6 �. 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 RESOLUTION NO. 2{95 RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE SALE OF REMNANT PARCELS RELATED TO THE RICHFIELD PARKWAY CONNECTION PROJECT ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding the construction of Richfield Parkway; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the sale of subdivided portions of the following single family properties to the adjacent landowners as noted would be consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan; Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview (6245 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6239 Bloomington Avenue) Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview (6301 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6305 Bloomington Avenue) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the sale of the above described properties by the City to adjacent landowners is in conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2014 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. 011111111r . 0 , 'ick Jabs, Chairperson ATTEST: 0 6 _ ict,eL/2_ , .ceet2oly Thomas Rublein, Secretary AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM# 8.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 187 ogAixlet CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Richfield Ice Arena has become the home of Minnesota's newest Tier 2 Junior Hockey Team, the Minnesota Magicians. To accommodate the team, the City has constructed an additional locker room to Rink 1 and the Magicians are renting this space for$4,155 per month. To further accommodate the team, the 1,900 square-foot area of the Arena that was formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey(see Exhibit A)will be converted into a training facility for ice sport athletes and made available for lease. Highlights of the Lease Agreement are as follows: • Rent—$500 per month for the first six months of lease term and $1,500 per month for the remaining 36 months of the lease term. • Term—The term of the Lease Agreement shall commence on October 15, 2014, and shall terminate on April 14, 2018. • Use of Leased Premises-The Leased Premises shall be used only for training purposes for individuals and groups including strength conditioning, aerobic conditioning, skill development and other ice sports training activities, and other activities as the City may authorize from time to time. • Taxes— Hennepin County officials have reviewed the attached lease and have determined use of the leased premises are not subject to property taxes because the leased premises will not operate as a training center for the general public such as a private health club. • Utilities -The Team will pay a prorated share of electric and gas utilities for the lease space. • Insurance—The Magicians will be required to carry insurance to cover general liability, fire and damage as set forth in Article VIII. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • At a study session on April 18,2013,staff presented a proposal to construct a number of building improvements at the Ice Arena including the construction of a dedicated locker room,training area,lobby expansion and exhibit area/classrooms to accommodate the new team and larger crowds. Cost estimates for all these improvements were initially estimated at about$1,961,960 not including parking lot expansion and related storm water retention that would be triggered by building code due to the magnitude of the amount of improvements made to the Arena. When adding the cost of parking lot and storm water retention improvements,it was later concluded that the cost to fund these improvements over a fifteen-year bond term would far exceed the amount of anticipated. additional revenue the new improvements would help generate to pay the annual bond payments. As a result, the proposal to proceed with lobby,classroom and training facility expansion was abandoned. • City Council approved a contract with Derau Construction Company on November 12,2013 in the amount of $510,900 to construct an attached locker room to Rink 1 as a stand-alone project.This contract did not include architectural design costs or contingency. • The estimated final cost of the new locker room is$625,478 including design cost and contingency. • The Minnesota Magicians played their first home game on September 19,2013. An ordinance amendment was approved by Council on August 28,2013 to temporarily allow a properly licensed food establishment to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor beverages at the Richfield Arena for the remainder of the Magician's first season. • State Representative Linda Slocum and Senator Melissa Wicklund sponsored and introduced a bill for special legislation to sell strong beer and wine at the Richfield Arena. The Minnesota State Legislature enacted this bill earlier this year. • The Richfield City Council approved a rental agreement between the City and the Magicians on September 9, 2014,for use of the newly constructed locker room. • The lease with Hat Trick Hockey was terminated on March 31,2014 by default. The space was offered to the Magicians as a training facility for team players and camps. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Council considers and executes these types of agreements for the City. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Minnesota Magicians have started their second season on September 1,2014 and are currently renting a training facility elsewhere for the team. Converting the Hat Trick space into a training facility now will greatly benefit the team and will be in place to promote spring and summer camps next year. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Hat Trick Hockey rented the leased premises for$1,475 per month. The Magicians will be using the training facility just for the team on a limited basis for the first six months of the term and will pay reduced rent in the amount of$500 per month. During this time the team will develop and promote hockey camps for youth to begin in spring. After six months,the team will begin using the training facility for camps and hence will be charged the full rate of$1,500 per month thereafter. • The space requires minimal upgrade to convert from retail to a training facility. The Magicians will supply all the training equipment and the City will provide the installation of skate-tile to protect the floor. The cost of installing skate-tile is approximately$10,000 and will be funded through the Arena operating budget. The Magicians will be responsible for providing any desired signage. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Reject the agreement and renegotiate with the Minnesota Magicians. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Scott Meyer, Co-Owner, Minnesota Magicians. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Lease Attachment Contract/Agreement D Magicians Lease Exhibit A Exhibit Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 1 Kennedy&Graven, Chartered LEASE AGREEMENT This lease is made this 28th day of October, 2014, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Landlord") and Minnesota Junior Hockey Group d.b.a. Minnesota Magicians and affiliated Exceed Hockey, Inc. ("Tenant"). Landlord and Tenant, intending to be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follow: ARTICLE I. Leased Premises 1.1 Landlord does hereby lease, demise, and let unto Tenant, and Tenant does hereby hire and take from Landlord, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein (the Lease), the premises shown cross-hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, consisting of 1,900 square feet of space (Leased Premises), located on the level of the Richfield Ice Arena Building located at 636 East 66th Street situated in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Building"). ARTICLE II. Term 2.1. The term of the Lease shall commence on October 15, 2014 (the Commencement Date); and the Lease shall terminate on April 14, 2018. 2.2. If, at the termination of this lease agreement for reasons other than default or breach by Tenant, Landlord decides to lease the Leased Premises to a third party, Tenant shall have the right, fora period of one year after April 14, 2018, to match or exceed any proposed and/or actual lease for the Leased Premises which is acceptable to the Landlord, and if the Tenant elects in writing within 15 days of the date of receipt of the proposed and/or actual Lease, then the parties hereto shall execute such a lease. ARTICLE III. Rent 3.1 Tenant shall pay to Landlord as the "Base Rent" monthly rent in the amount of $500.00 per month for the first six months of lease term and $1,500.00 per month thereafter. Said Base Rent shall be payable in advance, on or before the first (15th) day of each and every month, commencing on the Commencement Date, and continuing during the Term. ARTICLE IV. Nonpayment 4.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Tenant covenants and agrees that if at any time it fails to pay any amount required by the Lease, or to obtain, pay for, maintain, or deliver any of the insurance policies herein provided for, or fails to make any other payment or perform any other act required to be made or performed by the Lease, then Landlord, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, without waiving or releasing Tenant from any obligation of Tenant contained in the Lease, and without any obligation to do so, may effect any such insurance coverage and pay premiums therefor and may make any other payment or perform any other act on the part of Tenant to be made and performed as provided in the Lease, in such manner and to such extent as Landlord may deem reasonably desirable, and in exercising such right to pay necessary and incidental costs and expenses. All sums so paid by Landlord and all necessary and any such act by Landlord, together with interest thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law, Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 2 whichever is less, from the date of making of such expenditure by Landlord, shall be payable to Landlord as Additional Rent, and except as otherwise provided for in the Lease, shall be payable on demand or at the option of Landlord may be added to any monthly rental then due or thereafter becoming due under the Lease. Tenant covenants to pay any such sum or sums with interest as aforesaid and Landlord shall have (in addition to any right or remedy of Landlord) the same rights and remedies in the event of nonpayment by Tenant as in the case of default by Tenant in payment of rent. ARTICLE V. Taxes 5.1 In the event that Hennepin County determines that real estate taxes are required by law, Tenant shall pay all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments which shall during the term be laid, assessed, levied or imposed upon or shall become payable and a lien upon, the Leased Premises or any part thereof (the Taxes). Such taxes and special assessments shall be prorated in the first and last years of the Lease based upon the period of occupancy. Tenant shall make such real estate tax payments directly to the appropriate governmental authorities, which have lawfully levied and are authorized to collect such tax. ARTICLE VI. Utilities and Maintenance Expense 6.1. Tenant shall pay its pro rata share of all charges for electricity, light, air conditioning and power with the Leased premises. The charges thereof shall be deemed Additional Rent and payable in accordance with Article V hereof. To the extent that utilities are separately metered or separately charged to Tenant's Premises, they shall not be subject to prorated allocation, but shall remain the obligation of Tenant. ARTICLE VII. Repairs, Maintenance and Alterations 7.1 Tenant shall, during the Term and at Tenant's expense, keep the Leased Premises and appurtenances and every part thereof in good order, condition, and repair, including, without limitation, the maintenance, repair, and replacement, if necessary, of all interior walls, partitions, doors, and windows, including the regular painting thereof. Tenant shall promptly notify Landlord of any necessary maintenance, repairs, or replacements. When used in this provision, the term repairs' shall include replacements or renewals when necessary, and all such repairs made by the Tenant shall be equal in quality and class to the original work. If Tenant does not keep and maintain the Leased Premises as herein provided, Landlord may, but need not, make such repairs and replacements, and Tenant shall pay Landlord, as Additional Rent, the cost thereof forthwith, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of making such expenditure by Landlord, upon being billed for the same. All damage or injury to the Leased Premises and to its fixtures, appurtenances, and equipment caused by Tenant moving property in or out of the Leased Premises or by installation, removal of furniture, fixtures, equipment, or other property by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, or employees, or resulting from any other cause of any other kind or nature whatsoever due to carelessness, omission, neglect, improper conduct, or other causes of Tenant, its servants, employees, agents, visitors, or licensees, shall be repaired, restored, or replaced promptly by Tenant at its sole cost and expense to the satisfaction of Landlord. If Tenant fails to make such repairs, restorations, or replacements, the same may be made by Landlord and the same shall be at the expense of Tenant and collectible as Additional Rent or otherwise, and shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord within five (5) days after rendition of a bill or statement therefor. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 3 7.2 Except as otherwise provided herein, no improvements, alterations, or replacements shall be made to the Leased Premises or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of Landlord. 7.3 Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein to the contrary, Landlord shall repair, at its expense, the structural portions of the Building; provided, however, where structural repairs are required to be made by reason of the acts of Tenant, the costs thereof shall be borne by Tenant and payable by Tenant to Landlord upon demand. 7.4 Landlord covenants to Tenant that it will continue to reasonably provide for the removal of snow from the parking lot and sidewalks and for the maintenance and repair work on the building exterior all for the benefit of users of the building, including Tenant. ARTICLE VIII. Insurance 8.1 Landlord shall at all times during the Term keep the Building insured against loss or damage by fire and against those perils included from time to time in the standard form of extended coverage insurance endorsement, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, wind storm, hail, explosion, vandalism, riot and civil commotion, damage from vehicles, and smoke damage, and such other coverage as may be deemed necessary by Landlord. 8.2 Tenant shall insure the contents of the Leased Premises owned by Tenant, for the benefit of Tenant, against lose or damage by fire, windstorm, or other casualty for such amount as Tenant may desire. 8.3 Mutual Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Lessee hereby waive any and all rights of recovery against each other for any loss or damage to the Leased Premises and/or the Building or the contents contained therein on account of fire or other casualty or for injuries sustained on the Leased Premises and/or the Building, provided such loss or damage is insured under a policy carried by Lessor or Lessee at the time of such loss or damage. The aforesaid policies of insurance shall contain appropriate provisions recognizing this mutual release and waiving all rights of subrogation on behalf of the respective insurance carriers. 8.4. Tenant shall also, as Additional Rent hereunder and at Tenant's sole cost and expense, but for the mutual benefit of Landlord and Tenant, as named insureds, maintain during the Term (a) general public liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring upon, in, or about the Leased Premises, and on, in, or about the adjoining lands, such insurance to afford protection to the limit of not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) in respect to injury or death to a single person, and to the limit of not less than one Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in respect to any one (1) accident and to the limit of not less than Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) in respect to any property damage; and (b) steam boiler insurance on all steam boilers, pressure boilers, or other such apparatus as Landlord may deem necessary to be covered by such insurance and in such amount or amounts as Landlord may from time to time reasonably require. 8.5 All policies of insurance required to be maintained by Tenant shall be written in companies satisfactory to Landlord, and shall be written in such form and shall be distributed in such companies as shall be reasonably acceptable to Landlord. Such policies shall be delivered to Landlord endorsed "premium paid" by the company or agency issuing the same or accompanied Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 4 by another evidence satisfactory to Landlord that the premiums thereon have been paid, not less than (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy. ARTICLE IX. Quiet Enjoyment 9.1 Landlord represents and warrants that it is the lawful owner of the Leased Premises; that it has the full right and power to make the Lease; that if and so long as Tenant shall not be in default hereunder, Tenant shall quietly hold, occupy, and enjoy the Leased Premises during all of the Term. ARTICLE X. Destruction by Fire 10.1 If the Building or any portion thereof is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, however or by whomever caused, Landlord shall repair, rebuild, and restore the same with due diligence and dispatch (subject to the approval of the holders of any mortgages on the Building) so that the Building will be restored to at least the same good order and condition as existed prior to damage or destruction. If more than twenty five percent (25%) of the Leased Premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Landlord shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to decline to rebuild. If Landlord so declines, this Lease shall terminate as of the date of such damage or destruction. If Landlord elects to repair the Building, and if such damage in the reasonable opinion of the Landlord renders the entire Leased Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, and Tenant by reason thereof discontinues business in the Leased Premises, Base Rent and Additional Rent shall be abated for a period during which no part of the Leased Premises is fit for such business purposes and during which time Tenant discontinues business. If such damage renders only part of the Leased Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, Base Rent shall be apportioned on a square foot of Leased Premises area basis and the proportion thereof applicable to each part of the Leased Premises upon which Tenant discontinues its business operations shall be abated for the period during which such part is not fit for Tenant's normal business purposes and during which Tenant discontinues such business operations. 10.2 Tenant will repair and replace all improvements and betterments placed upon the Leased Premises by it, and such repair and replacement shall be made at its own expense and not at the expense of Landlord. ARTICLE XI. Assignment and Subletting 11.1 Tenant shall not assign or sublease any of its rights under the Lease of any part of the Leased Premises without prior written consent from Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by Landlord. No such assignment or subleasing shall in any event relieve Tenant from any of its obligations contained in the Lease, nor shall any assignment or transfer of the Lease be effective unless the assignee or transferee shall, at the time of such assignment or transfer, assume in writing all the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease to be performed thereafter by Tenant and shall agree in writing to be bound thereby. Tenant agrees to pay on behalf of Landlord any and all costs of Landlord, including reasonable attorneys'fees occasioned by such assignment or transfer. ARTICLE XII. Defaults of Tenant 12.1 If during the Term Tenant shall default in fulfilling any of the covenants of the Lease Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 5 (other than the covenants for the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent), Landlord shall give Tenant notice of any default or of the happening of any contingency referred to in this paragraph, and if at the expiration of twenty (20) days after the service of such notice the default or contingency upon which said notice was based shall continue to exist, or in the case of a default or contingency which cannot with due diligence be cured within a period of twenty (20) days, if Tenant fails to proceed promptly after the service of such notice and with all due diligence to cure the same and thereafter to prosecute the curing of such default with all due diligence, Landlord, at its option, may terminate the Lease, and upon such termination, Tenant will quit and surrender the Leased Premises to Landlord, but Tenant shall remain liable as hereinafter provided. 12.2 If Tenant shall default in the payment of the Base Rent or Additional Rent expressly reserved hereunder, or any part of the same, and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after notice thereof by Landlord, or if the Lease shall expire as provided in Paragraph 12.1 of this Article, Landlord or Landlord's agents and servants may immediately or at any time thereafter re-enter the Leased Premises and remove all persons and any or all property therefrom, either by summary dispossession proceedings or by any suitable action or proceedings at law or by force or otherwise and repossess and enjoy said Leased Premises, together with all additions, alterations and improvements, without reentry and repossession working forfeiture or waiver of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by Tenant during the Term hereof. Upon the,expiration of the Term of the Lease by reason of any of the events described in Paragraph 12.1, or in the event of termination of the Lease by summary dispossession proceedings or under any provision of law now or hereafter in force by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant (except where such breach or default is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be justified because of Landlord's acts or omissions), or upon Landlord recovering possession of the Leased Premises in the manner or in any of the circumstances whatsoever, whether with or without legal proceedings, by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant, Landlord may, at its option, at any time and from time to time, relet the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, for the account of Tenant or otherwise, and receive and collect the rents therefor, applying the same first to the payment of such expenses as Landlord may have incurred in recovering possession of the Leased Premises, including legal expenses and attorneys, fees, and for putting the same into good order or condition or preparing or altering the same for re-rental and all other expenses, commissions, and charges paid, assumed, or incurred by Landlord in reletting the Leased Premises and then to the fulfillment of the covenants of Tenant hereunder. Any such reletting herein provided for may be for the remainder of the Term of the Lease as originally granted or for a longer or shorter period. In any such case or whether or not the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, is relet, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the Base Rent and the Additional Rent required to be paid by Tenant up to the time of such termination of the Lease, as the case may be, and thereafter, Tenant covenants and agrees, if required by Landlord, to pay to Landlord until the end of the Term of the Lease the equivalent of the amount of all the Base Rent and Additional Rent reserved herein less the net proceeds of reletting, if any. Landlord shall have the election, in place and stead of holding Tenant so liable, forthwith to recover against Tenant, as damages for loss of the bargain and not as penalty, an aggregate sum which at the time of such termination of the Lease for such recovery of possession of the Leased Premises by Landlord, as the case may be, represents the then present worth of the excess, if any, of the aggregate of the Base Rent and Additional Rent payable by Tenant hereunder that would have accrued for the balance of the Term, over the aggregate rental value of the Leased Premises for the balance of such Term. 12.3 The specified remedies to which Landlord may resort under the terms of the Lease are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies or means of redress to Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 6 which Landlord may be lawfully entitled in case of any breach or threatened breach by Tenant of any provision of the Lease. The failure of Landlord to insist in any one or more cases upon the strict performance of any of the covenants of the Lease or to exercise any option herein contained shall not be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of such covenant or option. A receipt by Landlord of Base Rent or Additional Rent, with knowledge of breach of any covenant hereof(other than the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent) shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach, and no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by Landlord. In addition to other remedies provided in this Lease, Landlord shall be entitled to the restraint by injunction for the violation or attempted or threatened violation of the covenants, conditions, or provisions of the Lease. ARTICLE XIII. Attorneys' Fees 13.1 If it is necessary for Landlord to retain the services of an attorney at law to enforce any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof, or to collect any sums due hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord upon demand, as Additional Rent hereunder, the reasonable cost of such services. ARTICLE XIV. Removal of Improvements and Fixtures 14.1 Any improvements or fixtures installed by Tenant in the Leased Premises or in the Building, whether used solely in Tenant's business or whether usable in the Leased Premises without regard to such business or otherwise, shall become the property of Landlord upon the termination of the Lease. ARTICLE XV. Condition of Leased Premises at Termination 15.1 At the termination of the Lease by lapse of time or otherwise, Tenant shall return the Leased Premises in as good a condition as when Tenant took possession, excepting only ordinary wear and tear, damage, or destruction as described in Article 10 herein. ARTICLE XVI. Holding Over 16.1 In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, if Tenant should continue to occupy the Leased Premises following the expiration of the Term of the Lease, Tenant shall so remain as a tenant from month to month and all provisions of the Lease applicable to such tenancy shall remain in full force and effect. During such tenancy, the same Base Rent and the same terms and conditions as prevailed during the last month of the Term demised shall prevail. In any such event, Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for damages which Landlord may incur as a result of such holding over, including but not limited to damages incurred because of loss of a prospective successor tenant. If Tenant is a holdover tenant and if Tenant continues to ' occupy the Leased Premises following the termination of such holdover (by a proper notice as to such month tenancy), then the foregoing provisions of this Article shall apply in the same manner as when Tenant continued in occupancy following the expiration of the Term of the Lease. ARTICLE XVII. Use of Leased Premises 17.1 The Leased Premises shall be used only for training purposes for individuals and groups including strength conditioning, aerobic conditioning, skill development and other ice sports training activities, and such other activities as the Landlord may authorize from time to time. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 7 Tenant shall not use or occupy the Leased Premises or knowingly permit the Leased Premises to used or occupied contrary to any statute, rule, order, ordinance, requirement, or regulation applicable thereto or in any manner which would violate any certificate of occupancy affecting the same, or which would cause structural injury to the Leased Premises or cause the value or usefulness of the Leased Premises or any part thereof to substantially diminish (reasonable wear and tear excepted) or which would constitute a public or private nuisance or waste. Tenant shall promptly upon discovery of any such use, take all necessary steps to compel the discontinuance of such use. Landlord shall not, during the term of this Lease, permit or allow anyone other than Tenant to use the Building as a location to provide training services during the business hours of Tenant. This limitation shall not prohibit the occasioned sale of hockey related merchandise by local hockey associations during organized events. ARTICLE XVIII. Permits 18.1 Tenant shall maintain in force and effect all permits, licenses, and similar authorizations to use the Leased Premises for the aforesaid purposes required by any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the use thereof. Tenant's failure to maintain such permits, licenses, and similar authorizations shall not relieve Tenant from the performance of its obligations and covenants hereunder (except obligations and covenants as may be prohibited by law), nor from the obligations to pay Base Rent or Additional Rent, as set forth herein. Tenant shall, at Landlord's request, in its capacity as Tenant, and not in its capacity as owner of the land underlying the Building, join with Landlord in executing, acknowledging, and delivering any and all petitions, consents, subordinations, plats, or easement deeds that may be required for the installation of any utilities, public improvements, roads, water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, subdivision, rezoning, special use, platting, or other similar development of the Leased Premises, which do not affect Tenant's use of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease. ARTICLE XIX. Compliance with Law 19.1 Tenant, at its sole expense, shall promptly comply with all laws, ordinances, and requirements of federal, state, county, and municipal authorities relating to Tenant's use and occupation of the Leased Premises, and with any lawful order or direction of any public officer relating to Tenant's use and occupation of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease. Nothing herein contained, however, shall prohibit Tenant from appealing from or contesting the validity or legality of such laws, ordinances, requirements, orders, or directions and, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Article, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default hereunder so long as Tenant diligently prosecutes such appeal or contest. ARTICLE XX. Lessor's Access to Premises 20.1 Tenant shall permit Landlord and the authorized representatives of Landlord to enter the Leased Premises at all times during usual business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same and making any necessary repairs to comply with any laws, ordinances rules, regulations, or requirements of any public authority or of the Board of Fire Underwriters or any similar board. Nothing herein shall imply any duty upon the part of Landlord to do any such work which, under any provision of the Lease, Tenant may be required to perform, and the performance thereof by Landlord shall not constitute a waiver of Tenant's default in failing to perform the same. Landlord may, during the progress of any work in the Leased Premises, reasonably keep and store upon the Leased Premises all necessary materials, tools, and equipment. Landlord shall not in any event be liable for inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 8 by reason of making repairs or the performance of any work in the Leased Premises, or on account of bringing materials, supplies, and equipment onto or through the Leased Premises during the course thereof, and the obligations of Tenant under the Lease shall not hereby be affected in any manner whatsoever. Landlord shall, however, in connection with the doing of any such work cause as little inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant as may reasonably be possible in the circumstances. ARTICLE XXI. Indemnity 21.1 Tenant shall indemnify and save harmless Landlord against and from any and all claims by or on behalf of any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations, arising from the conduct or management of or from any work or thing whatsoever done by Tenant, or any of its agents, contractors, employees, or licensees in, on or about the Leased Premises, and will further indemnify and save Landlord harmless against and from any and all claims arising during the Term of the Lease from any condition of the Leased Premises arising from any breach or default on the part of Tenant in the performance of any covenant or agreement on the part of Tenant to be performed, pursuant to the terms of the Lease, or arising from any act of negligence of Tenant, or any of its agents, contractors, employees, or licensees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage whatsoever caused to any person, firm, or corporation occurring during the Term of the Lease, in the Leased Premises, and from and against all costs, reasonable attorneys, fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or about any such claim or action or proceeding brought thereon; and in case any action or proceeding is brought against Landlord by reason of any such claim, Tenant, upon notice from Landlord, shall resist or defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. However, nothing in this Lease shall require the Tenant to indemnify and save harmless Landlord from any claim caused by or occasioned by actions of the Landlord, its agents, contractors, employees or licensees. ARTICLE XXII. Estoppel Certificate 22.1 Tenant shall, at any time and from time to time, upon not less than twenty (20) days' prior notice by Landlord, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Landlord a statement in writing certifying that the Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there shall have been modifications that the Lease is in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications) and the dates to which the Base Rent and Additional Rent have been paid in advance, if any, and stating whether or not (to the best knowledge of Tenant) Landlord is in default in the performance of any covenant, agreement, or condition contained in the Lease and, if so, specifying each such default of which Tenant may have knowledge, it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this Article shall be in a form approved by and may be relied upon by any prospective assignee of Landlord's interest in the Lease or any mortgagee of the Leased Premises or any assignee of any mortgage upon the Leased Premises. ARTICLE XXIII. Subordination 23.1 The Lease shall, at landlord's election, be subject and subordinate to the terms and conditions of all mortgages which may now or hereafter encumber the Leased Premises and to all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements, and extensions of such mortgages. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly execute any certificate of subordination or other such documents which Landlord or its mortgagees may request. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 9 ARTICLE XXIV. Signs 24.1 Upon prior written approval by Landlord of design and construction, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Tenant may erect such signs upon the Leased Premises as it may deem desirable, as long as said signs do not exceed in weight the safe carrying capacity of any bearing structure, or violate the laws of the state or ordinances of the municipality in which the Leased Premises is situated. ARTICLE XXV. Entire agreement 25.1 The Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements, or conditions, oral or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever. Any agreement hereafter made shall be ineffective to change, modify, discharge, or effect an abandonment of the Lease in whole or in part unless such agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, modification, discharge, or abandonment in sought. ARTICLE XXVI. Release of Lessor 26.1 If Landlord sells or otherwise transfers all of its interest in the Leased Premises, Landlord shall, without further action by any party, be released and discharged from any further obligation or duty under the Lease, and no claim or demand upon Landlord shall thereafter be made by Tenant arising out of any such prospective obligation or duty of Landlord hereunder. Upon request by Landlord, Tenant shall execute an attornment agreement with Landlord's transferee in form satisfactory to such transferee. ARTICLE XXVII. Severability 27.1 If any term, condition, or provision of the Lease or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder thereof and the application of such terms, provisions, and conditions to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and the Lease and all the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law. ARTICLE XXVIII. Short Form Lease 28.1 At the request of either party hereto, a short form lease shall be prepared in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to each of the parties and shall be executed by each of the parties in duplicate, such lease to be filed for record in Hennepin County, Minnesota. ARTICLE XXIX. Notices 29.1 Any notice or election herein requested or permitted to be given or served by either party hereto upon the other, shall be deemed given or served in accordance with the provisions of the Lease if delivered to either party hereto and receipt is obtained therefor, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United states registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed to such other party at the address hereinafter specified. Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed as follows: Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 10 If to Landlord: City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 If to Tenant: Minnesota Magicians and Exceed Hockey, 640 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423 Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, on the date the same is deposited in the United states registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed in the manner above provided. Each such delivered notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon, the party to whom delivered, upon delivery thereof in the manner above provided. Either party may change the address to which mailed notice is to be sent to it by giving to the other party hereto not less than thirty (30) days, advance written notice thereof. All payments of Base Rent or Additional Rent hereunder shall be made to Landlord at the address above designated, or as may be hereafter designated. ARTICLE XXX. Headings 30.1 The headings incorporated in the Lease are for convenience in reference only and are not a part of the Lease and do not in any way limit or add to the terms and provisions hereof. ARTICLE XXXI. Binding Effect 31.1 All of the covenants, conditions, and agreements herein contained shall extend to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. ARTICLE XXXI. Landlord's Use of Rented Premises 32.1 Tenant shall grant Landlord the use of the rented premises to accommodate skate related events for up to 11 days per year. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14,Page 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its Mayor, Debbie Goettel And By: Its City Manager, Steven Devich LESSEE: Minnesota Junior Hockey Group d.b.a. Minnesota Magicians and affiliated Exceed Hockey, Inc. By: Its Owners, This instrument was drafted by: Kennedy&Graven,Chartered(JBD) 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-337-9219 EXHIBIT A . • , ,. ... .- ______ : ''' .---------.11... Fi. a ... . . -Ab P2 ' ° it , ' ” , 11 tu /Pi : !- 1-9, Iiii. :).-,' ji Ai e.3- ' --- , - ,... il , 41 66 � '� �..�i�.-"� !V { 1 i� ` - ' lI).*' lgj - _,. ' __ -'z `,4„ "z.:� Ems.t �:•1►--J ,0„ „:0:.,..z.. .: :1 1,:n.,, 0'1, --, '•-•:' kJ t(SR 9, 4 s -` V _ 72 1 •,-.,,, y � ..{.. ``r y 6 ��i . U ■\ e7• . t ill< Ili ' �;.a-R O . i X la----ca i"':111-.,.; .. '''-.,.;. ,-:,..,.,. .-',,,,, ' .-k...; . s',,,‘.,,, . ---,,,,z '''''',,,,,•;:\.'d4s,, I 0-0 I L-171\4 "" ...1 e • c., o .. 4, t k. !. yZ �.-L.`�F!��+a ill ''�, O Ii l • tf' l t . 'tee<,�� 1 .Et 1.0 L_ �, .4. r } , :l _►s►�aW-11PW�, _ -- ai .t ,., ,,y _ � _.. ,. ■,„ ",, / I I ilD ,-, ( .4,,. „...,.. ,,,,, ,,,.....„ ..,.c, 1 1 t ( L(?(NI • '--.., .7 1 ./ (,) .--;-, i J. .1_ i '' • / (C■._) 1.-- 1 �� , — t<l) I! Li 4> i 1 F, R. op n (9 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 10. STAFF REPORT NO. 188 Gc*eeel CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Link, Operations Superintendent DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continued public hearing regarding the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since the 1988, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along the 77th Street redevelopment area between I-35W and Cedar Avenue. The special maintenance services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services, are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses Action on this item was delayed and the the public hearing continued from the October 14 meeting because: • The letters that were sent to property owners included assessment amounts from last year's assessment (higher than this year's assessments). • By continuing the hearing the affected property owners will get proper notice for the correct amounts. Staff is recommending the City Council approve resolutions that: 1. Assess $59,779.82 against the 77th Street properties for work done in 2013. 2. Propose a similar assessment process for 2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue to conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution proposing to assess commercial properties in the 77th Street assessment district for costs incurred to maintain that area for 2013. 2. Adopt the attached resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2015. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2013 maintenance of this area to be$59,779.82, and estimate the cost for 2015 maintenance to be$80,000. • Fluctuations in expenditures for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment area are caused by a number of factors: o Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs o Street light knockdowns are not foreseeable and very expensive o The need to paint streetlights o Concrete repair varies from year to year. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • Section 825 of the City Code indicates"current services"mean one or more of the following: o (a)snow,ice,or rubbish removal from sidewalks; o (b)weed elimination from streets or private property; o (c)removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property,excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,sections 463.15 to 463.26; o (d)installation or repair of water service lines; o (e)street sprinkling,sweeping,or other dust treatment of streets; o (f)the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; o (g)the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; o (h)the repair of sidewalks and alleys; o (i)the operation of a street lighting system; o (j)the maintenance of landscaped areas,decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way;and o (k)snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Resolution No.7405,adopted in 1988,established a policy for assessing the costs. • Staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot,piece or parcel of land specially benefited. • The City does not assess residential properties for maintenance • The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk. • The Public Hearing Notice was published in the official newspaper on September 18,2014 and October 16,2014 • Notice of the public hearing for the proposed maintenance costs in 2013 was mailed to all owners described on the assessment roll on October 1,2014 meeting the two-week notification requirement. • A second notice was mailed on October 8,2014 notifying property owners of correct assessment amounts and the continued public hearing. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • On or before September 1 of each year,the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. • All unpaid charges against each property must be reported to Hennepin County by November 1st of each year. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services from 2002-2013 are: Year Estimate Actual 2002 $80,000 $75,490.39 2003 $80,000 $59,831.07 2004 $80,000 $63,842.79 2005 $80,000 $64,841.54 2006 $80,000 $69,606.52 2007 $80,000 $77,441.46 2008 $80,000 $77,000.01 2009 $80,000 $62,894.55 2010 $80,000 $64,124.81 2011 $80,000 $72,427.48 2012 $80,000 $78,286.45 2013 $80,000 $59,779.82 • City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the assessments be completely paid in the first year. • No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 27th,2014. After that date,the City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds for the initial expense. It is recommended that the interest rate be established at five percent(5%). • The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1,2015 through December 31,2015 is$80,000. All commercial properties would be assessed on a square foot basis. All residential properties, plus the two churches in the area,would be exempt from the special assessment levy. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • No legal issues are apparent at this time.The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Affected property owners ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Resolution adopting assessments for 77th Street Maintenance in Resolution Letter 2013 ❑ Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services in Resolution Letter 2015 ❑ 2013 Assessment Roll Exhibit D Copy of letter sent to assessed property owners Exhibit ❑ Copy of 2nd letter sent to property owners Exhibit D Graphic displaying 77th Street special assessment district Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2013 - DECEMBER 31, 2013 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Project, which is approximately bounded east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of$59,779.82 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 2014 and shall bear interest at the rate of five percent (5%) from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Finance Division and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31st of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 27th or interest will be charged through December 31st of the succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner in other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 28th day of October 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA JANUARY 1, 2015 - DECEMBER 31, 2015 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the 77th Street Project Area, approximately bounded by I- 35W, 77th Street, 1-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on October 28th 2014 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the 77th Street Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; e. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; f. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; g. Operation of the street lighting system; h. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; i. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; j. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Costs of the project shall be in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 2013 Actual Charges - 77th St Maintenance P t}j � w.S�0,41.19 - _7. ` 3302824430019 MSB HOLDINGS-RICHFIELD LLC $1,858.43 114,501 3302824430049 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS LLC $3,208.44 197,677 3302824430050 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS LLC $3,518.20 216,762 3302824440110 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $753.30 46,412 3302824440112 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $753.30 46,412 3302824440113 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $199.88 12,315 3302824440114 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $17.63 1,086 3302824440115 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $158.74 9,780 3302824440231 CSM INVESTORS INC $6,085.78 374,955 3302824440232 CSM SHOPS INC $5,330.65 328,430 3302824440233 CITY OF RICHFIELD/LIQUOR $382.72 23,580 3302824440234 CSM SHOPS INC $275.94 17,001 3302824440235 CSM SHOPS INC $194.01 11,953 3302824440236 CSM SHOPS INC $379.91 23,407 3402824330003 WOOD MN RE LLC $1,002.41 61,760 3402824330004 WOOD MN RE LLC $665.09 40,977 3402824330005 LE METTRY PROPERTIES $117.14 7,217 3402824330006 WOOD MN RE LLC $426.96 26,306 3402824330007 THOMAS I WOOD $120.32 7,413 3402824330080 RICHFIELD-BLMGTN HONDA $2,620.90 161,478 3402824330081 RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOC L P $1,179.57 72,675 3402824330082 RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOC L P $107.64 6,632 3402824330087 J &R RICHFIELD LLC $792.93 48,854 3402824330088 HPT CW II PROP TRUST $1,697.98 104,615 3402824330150 RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING INC $68.25 4,205 3402824330151 RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING INC $68.25 4,205 3402824330152 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330153 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330154 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330155 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824340001 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS DEV CORP $233.01 14,356 3402824340053 TWO S PROPERTIES, INC $1,516.47 93,432 3402824340054 LEIGHTON PARTNERS LLC ATTN CHIEF $327.32 20,167 MANAGER 3402824340055 HILMER M HOVELSON $326.79 20,134 3402824340056 VIKING PAINTS $375.92 23,161 3402824340057 VIKING PAINTS, INC $546.37 33,663 3402824340058 WILLIAMS PROPERTIES MN LLC $87.14 5,369 3402824340059 ROBERT A GEORGE $76.25 4,698 3402824340060 KERKER PROPERTIES LLC $163.65 10,083 3402824340061 H & M V PROPERTIES, LLC $163.69 10,085 3402824340065 7700 NICOLLET, LLC $302.80 18,656 3402824340066 REALTY INCOME PROPERTIES 3, LLC $285.89 17,614 3402824340073 CITY OF RICHFIELD ATTN: COMMUNITY $663.88 40,903 DEVELOPMENT 3402824430005 RALEIGH P NELSON $654.06 40,298 3402824430077 NAILA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC $377.69 23,270 3402824430078 MENARD INC $6,632.61 408,646 3402824440006 ELSEN BROTHERS INC $236.74 14,586 3402824440007 D B R INC ELSEN BROTHERS INC $373.99 23,042 3402824440023 A G BOGEN CO $473.55 29,176 3402824440024 TBG, LLC $166.14 10,236 3402824440025 GARY WIBERG $165.59 10,202 3402824440027 A G BOGEN $218.68 13,473 3402824440028 RICHFIELD WHEEL ALIGNMENT $166.97 10,287 3402824440029 BLAYLOCK PLUMBING CO $337.84 20,815 3402824440030 RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON CU $259.01 15,958 3402824440031 DJ &DJ LLC $498.04 30,685 3402824440032 RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON CU $595.88 36,713 3502824330006 ASIAN DRCT ORIENTAL MKT INC $364.07 22,431 3502824330007 UNICARE HOMES INC $479.55 29,546 3502824330008 LMMS PROPERTIES, LLC $447.43 27,567 3502824330009 LOIS BERG $407.47 25,105 3502824340002 B &S LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC $403.85 24,882 3502824430006 A G BOGEN $670.17 41,290 3502824430008 PMB HOSPITALITY LLC $758.66 46,742 3502824430073 A G BOGEN $236.53 14,573 3502824430074 A G BOGEN COMPANY $781.65 48,159 3502824430076 A G BOGEN COMPANY $969.83 59,753 3502824440004 MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P#1106 $885.94 54,584 3502824440006 CITY OF RICHFIELD/HRA $533.75 32,885 • 3502824440007 JERRY E MATHWIG $641.11 39,500 3502824440008 JERRY MATHWIG METRO SALES INC $877.71 54,077 3502824440010 ADLER GRADUATE SCHOOL $2,266.42 139,638 3502824440031 494 BUILDING PARTNERSHIP LLC $541.94 33,390 3502824440032 CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR $30.40 1,872 INCORPORATED $59,779.82 3,683,130 September 29, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: I. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2013- DECEMBER 31, 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the maintenance of the 77th Street Project Area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the 77th Street area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street project area, which totaled $59,779.82, against the properties that benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $59,779.82. The amount to be assessed against your particular property is $XXXXX. Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 18, 2014 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2014. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 14, 2014. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest. Payment on or after November 18, 2014: Assessments are spread over five years. Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for deferral of this special assessment. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will continue a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 2014, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations Superintendent, at 612-861-9174. October 8, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: Dear Property Owner/Manager , Please disregard the previous NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING notice that was dated September 29, 2014. A corrected Notice of Assessment is attached. You may still attend the Public Hearing scheduled for October 14th, 2014 or a continuation of that hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on October 28th, 2014 at the City of Richfield Regular City Council Meeting. I'm sorry for any inconvenience and if you have any questions contact Chris Link at 612-861- 9174 or clink(a�citvofrichfield.orq. Sincerely, cc.; Chris Link City of Richfield Public Works Operations Superintendent October 8, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2013- DECEMBER 31, 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing an the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the maintenance of the 77th Street Project Area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the 77th Street area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street project area, which totaled $59,779.82, against the properties that benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $59,779.82. The amount to be assessed against your particular property is $XXXXX. Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 27, 2014 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014. Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 28, 2014. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest. Payment on or after November 27, 2014: Assessments are spread over five years. Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for deferral of this special assessment. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will continue a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations Superintendent, at 612-861-9174. ILN (77TH STREET) MAINTENANCE DISTRICT w __I: 1 ____, ,--_ 4,r 76TH ST W I 76TH ST 1 IC i �_ Eli Ili 'cA 10 I i 77TH ST 77TH ST W il • v44,. • IF Ili -r— /,� • / 78TH ST W 78 H ST �iI/ INTERSTATE HWY NO INTERSTATE HWY NO 494 INTERSTATE HWY NO 484 78TH ST E =- -- .1111. E 76TH ST E - __ _ .1 _ RO U ► LT m�r� 1m I , _ -no HINGTO pr PARK 77TH ST E 77TH ST E gm iprim z , / � / gr DID7 /4pL-1-il 78TH ST E 78TH ST E .`- 4 INTERSTATE HWY N0494 - F ILN Maintenance District Assessed NO YES r CHFIELD AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 11. m/A1 STAFF REPORT NO. 189 GC �/� CITY COUNCIL MEETING !" 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway) and consideration of a resolution approving the assessment roll. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The North Richfield Parkway Project was ordered by City Council on February 12, 2013. The project reconstructed 17th Avenue between 63rd Street and 65th Street to a full parkway cross-section. Construction of the Parkway is substantially complete at this time. A special assessment bond was used for financing the project. The 17th Avenue properties that are being assessed will be conveyed to the HRA for redevelopment purposes. The HRA will be responsible for the assessments until a developer buys the land. The public hearing and adoption of the assessment roll resolution is the last Council action in the Minn. Statute 429 (local improvement) process for special assessments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Conduct and close the public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP-41007(North Richfield Parkway). 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the assessment roll for the North Richfield Parkway Project. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • The establishment of Richfield Parkway as a vehicular and greenway corridor extending from the City's northern border is an identified goal of the Comprehensive Plan. • The Special Assessment Bonding process was followed for the financing of the Project. Once the properties where purchased by the City,the City promised to convey the properties to the HRA for a nominal amount and the HRA would pay the annual assessment until a developer purchases the parcel. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The Replacement of Cedar Avenue by a new Richfield Parkway is identified in the Comprehensive Plan (6-19). • Staff is following the Minn. Statute Section 429 for special assessments. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: In order to move forward with the special assessment process as planned,City staff would like to convey the property to the HRA in October of 2014.Adoption of the proposed resolutions at this time will keep it on schedule. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The total cost of the project is$3,625,000. • The total cost to be assessed is$780,000 E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution and Assessment Roll Resolution Letter D Assessment Public Notice Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. CP-41007(NORTH RICHFIELD PARKWAY) WHEREAS,pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,the City Council of the City of Richfield(the"City")has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for Improvement No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway),the improvement on Richfield Parkway between the center-line of 65`h Street and the center-line of 63rd Street by total reconstruction (hereinafter, the "Improvement Project");and WHEREAS, costs have been calculated for the Improvement Project and a proposed assessment roll for the Improvement Project has been submitted to the City Council; and WHEREAS,the total estimated cost for the Improvement Project is$3,625,000 with the total cost to be assessed being$780,000. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that: 1. The above-referenced recitals are incorporated herein to this resolution as if fully set forth herein. 2. The proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, is hereby accepted and adopted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and shall bear interest at the rate of four percent (4.0%) per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor of Hennepin County,Minnesota(the"County Auditor"),pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time thereafter, pay to the County Auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31'of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment resolution to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of Hennepin County. Such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 450012v1 JAE RC145-632 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October,2014. Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs,City Clerk 2 450012v1 JAE RCI45-632 EXHIBIT A ASSESSMENT ROLL NAME ADDRESS PID# ASSESSMENT City of Richfield 6314 17th Avenue 2602824110045 $54,734.82 City of Richfield 6320 17th Avenue 2602824110044 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6326 17th Avenue 2602824110043 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6332 17th Avenue 2602824110042 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6338 17th Avenue 2602824110041 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6344 17th Avenue 2602824110040 $55,669.04 HRA Richfield 6400 17th Avenue 2602824140019 $56,686.44 City of Richfield 6408 17th Avenue 2602824140018 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6414 17th Avenue 2602824140017 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6420 17th Avenue 2602824140016 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6426 17th Avenue 2602824140015 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6432 17th Avenue 2602824140014 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6438 17th Avenue 2602824140013 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6444 17th Avenue 2602824140012 $56,219.33 A-1 450012v1 JAE RC145-632 // CITY OF RICHFIELD NOTICE OF HEARING TO BE HELD OCTOBER 28,2014 ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AND CANCELLATION OF HEARING PREVIOUSLY SET FOR OCTOBER 14,2014 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Richfield,Minnesota(the "City")will meet at or after 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, at the City Council Chambers in the Richfield Municipal Center located at 6700 Portland Avenue South in the City, to consider, and possibly adopt,the proposed assessment for Improvement No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway), the improvement on Richfield Parkway between the center-line of 65th Street and the center-line of 63rd Street by total reconstruction. The hearing previously set for October 14, 2014 is cancelled. Adoption by the City Council of the proposed assessment may occur at the hearing. The following is the area proposed to be assessed: Lot 9,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 9,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 10,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 10,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 11,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 11,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 12,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 12,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 13,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 13,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 14,Block 1,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 14,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 15,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Lot 16,Block 2,Iverson's Second Addition Such assessment is proposed to be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and will bear interest at the rate of 4.0%per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of the assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor pay the entire assessment on such property,with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City.No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will apply is 4.0%per year. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $780,000. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal to district court may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to 450010v3 JAE RC145-632 the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is teiminated for any reason provided in that law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due.Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of this law may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of this special assessment on his or her property. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. QUESTIONS: Call Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer, at 612-861-9791. HOW TO COMMENT: Attend the hearing and you will be heard or submit written comments. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA /s/Nancy Gibbs City Clerk City of Richfield,Minnesota AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE CITY CLERK AT 612-861-9738. Dated: 450010v3 JAE RC145-632 AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM# 12. STAFF REPORT NO. 190 gechleielet CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 • REPORT PREPARED BY: Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne,Acting Public Safety Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution, and first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on the consideration of new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places, places of employment, public transportation, and at public meetings. "Public place" means "any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public, and includes retail and commercial establishments. The Clean Indoor Air Act, however, allows customers to "sample"tobacco products in certain tobacco retail establishments as defined by statute. The Act allows cities and counties to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. In other words, cities can prohibit the sampling of tobacco if they wish to do so. The City currently has two establishments that offer sampling of tobacco or e-cigarettes. The City has also received an inquiry regarding an establishment wishing to offer indoor smoking or sampling. Richfield's code does not prohibit sampling of tobacco and, thus, it is allowed under state law. City staff is recommending adoption of a 12 month moratorium on consideration of any additional smoking or sampling establishments so that this issue can be properly studied and, if determined necessary, City Ordinances can be amended. During the moratorium period, no new establishments may allow indoor smoking or sampling. Although the City could legally apply this to existing establishments that offer sampling, staff is recommending that existing business be exempt from the moratorium and future ordinance amendments, if any. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution and conduct a first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on consideration of any establishment requesting to allow indoor smoking of sampling of tobacco or similar products. Schedule a second reading of the attached ordinance for November 10, 2014. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Historical Context is contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • State Law allows cities to adopt interim ordinances for the purposes of protecting the planning process and the health,safety and welfare of its citizens. • The Clean Indoor Air Act allows cities to enact more stringent measures than state law to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The City received an inquiry about a business wishing to allow indoor smoking or sampling. A moratorium would allow the City to determine whether,as a policy matter,it wishes to further restrict indoor smoking or sampling. • The term of the proposed moratorium is for 12 months,however,the City can repeal the moratorium at an earlier time if studies have been completed and necessary ordinance changes,if any adopted. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Resolution and Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Do not approve or approve with modificiations, the attached ordinance and resolution. • Approve a moratorium for a different length of time (cannot exceed one year). PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type A Resolution Establishing a Moratorium on Establishments Allowing D Indoor Smoking or Sampling of Tobacco or Similar Products and Resolution Letter Directing that a Study Be Conducted A Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Establishments Allowing D Indoor Smoking or Sampling of Tobacco or Similar Products and Ordinance Directing that a Study Be Conducted CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED WHEREAS, the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act ("Act") was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places; and WHEREAS, the Act allows customers to sample tobacco products in certain tobacco retail establishments as defined by state statute; and WHEREAS, the Act allows cities to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the City has at least two existing establishments offering sampling of tobacco or related products and has received at least one inquiry about a potential establishment that would allow indoor smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, the City's ordinances currently do not address or restrict sampling in retail establishments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its police power, the City has the authority to undertake a study to determine whether or not to adopt any restrictions on indoor smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, the City may also, pursuant to its general police power and authority under the Act, enact and enforce restrictions on smoking, including sampling, within the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine whether it should adopt such restrictions on smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of amending its ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to determine whether the City should prohibit or restrict smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents. 2. The study will allow the City to determine the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to City Ordinances. 3. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium, while the study referenced in paragraph 1 of this resolution is being conducted. 1 4. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council. 5. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's ordinances, the City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to any new retail establishments requesting to allow smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. 6. During the period of the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or requests related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by the City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant any such approvals, applications or requests. 7. The moratorium established by this resolution shall apply to any approval, application, or request pending as of the date of this resolution. 8. Unless earlier rescinded by the City Council, the moratorium established under this resolution shall remain in effect until October 28, 2015. 9. This resolution is effective upon adoption. Deborah Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 2 CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. A ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act ("Act") was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places. 1.02. The Act allows customers to sample tobacco products in certain retail establishments as defined by state statute. 1.03. The Act allows cities to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. 1.04. The City has at least two existing establishments offering sampling of tobacco or related products and has received at least one inquiry about a potential establishment that would allow indoor smoking or sampling. 1.05. The City's ordinances currently do not address or restrict sampling in retail establishments. 1.06. Pursuant to its police power, the City has authority to undertake a study to determine whether or not to adopt any restrictions on indoor smoking or sampling. 1.07. The City may also, pursuant to its general police power and authority under the Act, enact and enforce restrictions on smoking, including sampling, within the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. 1.08. The City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine whether it should adopt such restrictions on smoking or sampling. 1.09. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of amending its ordinances. Sec. 2. Findings. 2.01. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to determine whether the City should prohibit or restrict smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents. 2.02. The study will allow the City to determine the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to City Ordinances. 1 2.03. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium, while the study referenced in paragraph 2.01 is being conducted. Sec. 3. Authorized Study; Moratorium. 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council. 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's ordinances, the City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to any new retail establishments requesting to allow smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. 3.03. During the period of the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or requests related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by the City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant any such approvals, applications or requests. 3.04. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall apply to any approval, application, or request pending as of the effective date of this Ordinance. 3.05. The City Council may approve exceptions to this moratorium for an application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this moratorium was adopted. Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus, injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier rescinded by the City Council, the moratorium established under this Ordinance shall remain in effect until October 28, 2015. Sec. 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance is effective as provided by Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Deborah Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 2 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 13. STAFF REPORT NO. 191 ogAieel CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Jeff Pearson,Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the adoption of resolutions supporting the Preliminary Concept#4B design for 66th Street between I-35W and 16th Avenue and supporting the application of a design variance to reduce right-of-way impact. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Transportation Commission recommended the "Concept 4B" design between I-35W and 16th Avenue (referred to as "East 66th Street")for the 66th Street reconstruction project at their September 3, 2014 meeting. The concept was then presented at the September 25 Project Open House as the recommended concept for 66th Street between I-35W and 16th Avenue. The Concept#4B includes the following design elements to address the identified project goals: • Left-turn lanes (Vehicle Safety) • Medians (Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety) • Boulevards (Pedestrian Safety and Maintenance) • Cycle Tracks (Bicycle Safety) • Sidewalks (Pedestrian Safety) Right-of-way impacts are minimal in this section of the corridor since existing ROW width is generally 83'- 100'. There are an estimated total of 19 permanent easements required east of I-35W as part of the Concept #4B design. The three largest impacts are highlighted in the attached graphics and are all commercial properties. Property owners of these parcels have been engaged into the design process to discuss impact mitigation and solutions. One potential method of reducing property impacts is to reduce the required curb reaction distance (shoulder width)of 4-feet to 2-feet in the areas with three-lanes. This change will require MnDOT to grant Hennepin County a design variance. Following an analysis during the design phase, Hennepin County will need to apply for the variance is seeking the City's support for the variance in the form of the attached resolution. City staff will present an overview of the following information at the meeting: • Project Process • Project Goals • Concepts Evaluated • Concept#4B Preliminary Layout • Right-of-Way Impacts • Possible Design Variance RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. As recommended by the Transportation Commission, adopt a resolution granting approval of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 53 Preliminary Layout Concept#4B (East of Girard Avenue S) Hennepin County Project No. 1011 (66th Street) 2. Adopt a resolution supporting Hennepin County in seeking a variance from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)for design of curb reaction distance for County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 53 Preliminary Layout#4B (East of Nicollet Avenue S) Hennepin County Project No. 1011 (66th Street) BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Layout Options • The Transportation Commission prepared for the preliminary design process in January 2013 by creating a community based Guiding Principles document that is to be used for all upcoming street reconstruction projects. • Based on comments and feedback from the first public open house as well as existing approved planning documents such as the Richfield Complete Streets Policy and the Arterial Road Study,the following project goals were developed: o Pedestrian—Improve pedestrian experience both along and across the roadways o Transit—Improve passenger waiting experience, building on pedestrian safety o Recreational Bicycling—Provide space comfortable for recreational bicyclists o Commuter Bicycling—Provide dedicated space for commuter bicyclists o Vehicle Safety—Provide center turn lane to minimize conflicts and narrow lanes to reduce speeds o Environment—Add green boulevards o Maintenance—Add snow storage space • Based the the identified project goals, four cross-section concepts were developed for consideration (graphics attached): 1. Center turn-lanes, on-street bike lanes, boulevards, sidewalks 2. Center turn-lanes, on-street bike lanes, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi-use trail 3. Center turn-lanes, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi-use trail 4. Center turn-lanes, cycle tracks, boulevards,sidewalks • These four options were presented to the public at the second project open house and based on feedback received;the Commission narrowed the preferred concepts to#2&#4. • The Commission requested a version of Concept#4 that placed the cycle track facilities behind the boulevard rather than next to the curb. This change (Concept#4B)created additional buffer from vehicles and improved winter maintenance operations for the cycle tracks. • After gathering additional feedback regarding the Concept#2 vs Concept#4B options at community events, the Commission recommended Concept#4B east of I-35W. • The Commission recommended the addition of center median islands at several locations to improve pedestrian crossings along the corridor. Preliminary locations for those medians are included on the attached layout however the detailed design of these medians are subject to change as the project continues and additional feedback is received. Property Impacts • Right-of-way impacts are minimal in this section of the corridor since existing ROW width is generally 83'-100'. • There are a total of XX permanent easements required east of I-35W as part of the Concept#4B design. • The largest impacts are highlighted in the attached graphics and are all commercial properties. Property owners of these parcels have been engaged into the design process to discuss impact mitigation and solutions. • One possible solution to reduce right-of-way impacts is for the County to seek a design variance for the 3-lane roadway design east of Nicollet Avenue. • If granted,the variance would allow shoulder widths to decrease from 4'to 2' in areas without medians. The 4'of total right-of-way width would significantly reduce impacts to several properties. However, it is important to note that receiving a design variance is not a certainty and will need to be approved through an application process. Public Input • Four public open houses were held to present information and gather feedback on the following dates: o 10/10/2013 o 01/22/2014 o 05/01/2014 o 09/25/2014 • The first two open houses included both 66th Street East and Portland Avenue. Summaries of all four open houses including feedback received are attached. • In addition to the open houses,the public was encouraged to provide input via the following methods: o The project website o Richfield Connect(Mindmixer)site o Phone calls and direct visits with residents and businesses o Project table at the Farmer's Market Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) • In an effort to engage the various stakeholders involved in the 66th Street reconstruction project as •well as to gather the technical advice desired by the Transportation Commission, a Technical Advisory Committee was established during the preliminary design process. Staff representatives from MnDOT, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, and Richfield took part in periodic meetings to review layout alternatives and provide input. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The reconstruction project is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6— Transportation) • The Concept#4B Design is consistent with multiple City planning documents including: o Bicycle Master Plan o Street Reconstruction Guiding Principles Document o Complete Streets Policy o Arterial Roads Study o Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6—Transportation) C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The federal funding requires the project be programmed for 2016 construction. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Total estimated project cost is$37,007,000 with the following contributions: o $7,840,000 Federal o $23,439,000 County o $5,728,000 City(includes reconstruction of city utilities and undergrounding of overhead utilities) • The following sources are proposed for the City contribution: o Municipal State Aid (gas tax) o Street Reconstruction Bonds o Utilities Fund o Xcel Rate Payers Fee E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): • Council may choose to reject the Concept#4B preliminary design and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Area residents and business owners ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Concept 4B Resolution Resolution Letter ❑ Design Variance Resolution Resolution Letter ❑ Preliminary Layout 4B 10-17-14 35W to 16th Ave Exhibit D Concept#4B Cross Section Exhibit ❑ Concept#2 Cross Section Exhibit ❑ Concept#4A Cross Section Exhibit r5 Concept#1_#3 Cross Sections Exhibit ❑ ROW Impact NW Lyndale Exhibit ❑ 1401 66th ROW Impacts Exhibit D 1309 66th ROW Impacts Exhibit ❑ Open House#1 Comments Summary Exhibit ❑ Open House#2 Comments Summary Exhibit ❑ Open House#3 Summary Exhibit ❑ Open House#3 Comments Exhibit ❑ Open House#4 Comments and Summary Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY(CSAH)53 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT 4B(EAST OF GIRARD AVENUE S) HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1011 (66th STREET) WHEREAS,Preliminary Layout 4B east of Girard Avenue S. (dated October 17,2014)for Hennepin County Project No. 1011, showing the proposed improvements of County State Aid Highway 53 within the limits of the City,has been prepared and presented to the City; and WHEREAS,various elements will be addressed during the detailed design phase of this project that will not impact the general foot print of the project; and WHEREAS,this resolution excludes the following four intersections-east and west ramps at 35W,Lyndale Avenue S, and Nicollet Avenue S. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. That the preliminary layout for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 53 from Girard Avenue S.to 16th Avenue S. in accordance with Preliminary Layout 4B dated October 17,2014 be approved. 2. That Hennepin County is hereby authorized by the City to acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the improvements proposed in Preliminary Layout 4B. 3. That the City agrees to restrict the parking of all motor vehicles at all times in undesignated areas and provide enforcement of the applicable parking restricted sections of the project. 4. That the City acknowledge and support the pursuance of a State Aid variance for design elements east of Girard Avenue S. to minimize right of way impacts associated with Preliminary Layout 4B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October,2014. Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs,City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HENNEPIN COUNTY IN SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(MNDOT)FOR DESIGN OF CURB REACTION DISTANCE FOR COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY(CSAH)53 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT 4B(EAST OF NICOLLET AVENUE S) HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1011 WHEREAS, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield are in preliminary design phase for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 53 (66th Street S)between Xerxes and 16th Avenue S; and WHEREAS, construction of the above mentioned improvements will be accomplished under Hennepin County Project Number 1011 (State Aid Project Number 027-653-021); and WHEREAS,Minnesota Rules for State Aid Operations Chapter 8820 set minimum design standards for local state aid routes; and WHEREAS,Minnesota Rule 8820.9936 requires a minimum curb reaction distance of four(4) feet; and WHEREAS, The existing right of way does not provide adequate space to allow construction of a three-lane roadway and provision for snow storage, bicycle space, and pedestrian space that would meet Minnesota Rule 8820.9936. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: That the City actively supports the Hennepin County variance request of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to allow design of the proposed County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 53 roadway reconstruction project with a two(2)foot curb reaction distance instead of the four(4)foot standard curb reaction distance, for the portion of the project east of Nicollet Avenue S. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October,2014. Debbie Goettel,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs,City Clerk • -17SC--) 77l -0 O.B.AJI.NO.53 700/[OT NO.1011 RIMili .I01.RY OF RI01,1ELD p Z D «l 11110411111 ROON 35. TO 16TH © DATE:10/17/14 SCALE:1 in=50 ft STAFF APPROVAL__ 'D Z T < �11 � n 4.E3,>.----- m m 1 cn E- oniu ul al �E -, E:a,:la* C7 -0 (.31 mTl K 1.11.0 aaa _,_ -< FlIaenli]'l o z - ---1 W 0 — milk._an 6 z - O D IP--",J''_.,-, R1 — O C7 C") 73 •i 1i1 i li .gyp b " , — ' O O III _ P. - - - - 3 c O R : ra FK S x -.5,-••5 ..-• 6, K F, A ig, - P P . . .. $ IN) z Q � m_xg — D _ $ i , - E r' •' r s (W- } RA' - 111:P °s =m — ——� - > _! S ( s i -1 li I �(; gr,, - 3 I r • KM F 4 GIRARD AVE 5 4 I 11 � .: .,C._ ,- -FM 7+i a5$c f .F s Y k....-..:.-7- A � ICI 'A "1tt ':4%7114%,..:;i,,,..... ttltirb 1N1EtRM r 1 jam' ie a, _-A + 019^ I,I L 1 !. !l: Si 1 ^ _J MD a A 104: 1# •,534.-. AJ - 4 .. y�� b gbmalt - r.a►..„ ,- 'Ili!m nu// 2-44*,... 4,,._ ' 1 " y m Y . ` 1 r�� 11 t I s \ Iltatitr Yti ..- C tit-,`If E r ' 1 , -, EAERSON A' � �' - . 4.-L.. ,- -4.i-,,,E-12,4&" lif . . • """.r ;' _ .x° -' ■ k ,g 4 i a •41-,' . a .4t, L. .r- ..I it ps! ate. : ' s € li., 4r , b.-ff`� till ':. "°,... �o l '� "?` F ti y r _ ti .,:, a 1 F}j L :..„,.i. .,. ., ,, ,...,_, .Y tw / r� sac t 7:/ �i C p '.� L II f r.r w xt ; t r .• /;:; :*;:J r4� : ' c. --,..._;4:: r. //77 I :. 9 a _ Yom'' l4 • y. 4 7Cryf :: .„ f ! {+ y ��. \ 1 F COi \„ `1 �f r , d .' _ L g.[' \ tL ,� y,v., a - *' .A r / / lifigoI/I- I, -.1 i I I _ , tip ,.. " '8 ........ --. leo . . , ,:.4.. y y £ < z fi * I , ,1 If ,, 1,L'.o I i18 tit" tr.5 :.. ye ii ' r ! i.rti . i�l k `" t, rte, -: ,� � Imo? y r ^; 1 I i. j k 0 _ ' 4 b ..... C7.' } a•t. V54 RUUTE I (y f .,..q� s 1 F bl. p J.. ■ . y '. n y; ms'`s T •w'Nit,�fS f y. I,, M OU t 11* a 3)1 A..- v+ lA a ■ b _ ,. 'R.. Ti 1 y I dt L a iii , r ..• C y S t k 2 ,� c"7- II - ,,I� t 1 .. ■ ' .L` GAPND AVE 5 ` v J A 1 f L I I a• f-• •:r i ICI : r -,� -r,. --, I £ • rn . • n k.-^)^as PLEASANT Ni AVE S -7�-s '� �, 1 n. Lik1 art,. �`,' '"Y �, s r �� a 1 1 E• x 1,-� V x ` y 2 -;::-.';2•:-;'i.. .'' ' ' .- a a rs zi _ i '0 c-._i..�_.. ,. t.1► -•�''� 'n / 1 - i '4_� %- V 1' --t i ,. 1 ,� ��•_ may. lie' :r !± S' • pr = l , y - • o. co o 1 1II 1+ '' 'ice'!,' i NICDLLET AVE S/CSAN Si•• 7 'O I -- 3.„., 1 3;)*I33. 9, s.4 3491..3 li i -11P I s; �. i l = Yli Ciji, 7p73-bT.. m 7 Zia i,, i •-.. a1 a.' • mks ' i-•:--, ' a.,,...-' , . . ."..p -... . 1F-r 11 1 - . ' I „.... * 1 , _. 1. , , i 1 r . - , '. '4 '''', 'lki ''-, ' ' 1 Z ri 1 „ i e.,-., ., .' '-444it-4,-,. ...., ... -. ... -,,k ..,,joi.:,...,,,„. i 'i '4 rii, ) -31--, '-;Nr,tc‘ ' — ,,,.- ----,-;..-- , ..-. ri I 1 , „$--. ,,,,,,,:..., ...„44,T.,4 t -;..,..... ' ” Alt 1 i ''' •,> ''. ', 1.,'''--4,, ---,:‘ '' :-...., 4- “” '14 4 ' ISO' 1 " 1; ,... -a: ,, 4 Ll, '4,'''1.4' -."4„ . '''• ''''' -.LT- ' 7 ,„, , , , ir, .4!' '. • 1- $. I 1 i ,,.,, ) r. . .,•_ .■,_ '',, ,;, -`•4 -1,1 ..1 ..:, :::'"_('' i;.. ;, ',SIC' _ern , I, 1 r-. ,- ....,' ;‘, .7-4 ..,-* -,. .,:-..?„ ' -1 - 1,--,-, 4 „ , _. ,. ., , ,,,, ,,.., i,„ ‘,., ,,,, MID • ,,, ,.* ---,,... . 40, . 2 / •I. ..,-,- tt • '''''`... •' 5 . , , ! IlI''`'''' d',,,, ' . ''F,'.(..” ''' I ■ ut No SIMI "' j ,,, it `,. .1•Llt"' - - i L :..•. pt f , v, ..,r-,,-- -1,1, ,‘ *von i v -,,...,,.,„...1.., -, . ,,„....„-'',-,,„ .t.,,,. -,46,1 - k V; ---: .t'T,11*. '-' '' .i . r 7'W•ki‘ lit 4 ...,., . ... 4.„.1., i__._. ... „_: , 1,1 7 1 , ,. ,,A -''-t'''..•-• = 1 -1,„ • ' '".- I litOk., '' I 3,. • y.-4- 15-i-...4-1 - 4446 'I )iill.i '411E '',•1 . ti 1 1 't '''■•• t...- Ai— . : Irt . .,.„-. % 1 , 'vitt, ,, ■-- ' ■ , E-r. , tr, ,_ •-- . . i ' 1 I i , ' '''' t —I , 1 -:* ,,,, ,_ , ■ .all' 1 * , 653 "ii "2' " ,.0. '. :flik ' --7.• -.1 •e.' ' -.*'--. ,:s• 4 1 4 - , -. i T--1 pt ., y Oh -- 1.e I ki, ' C1INTA„..AVE S . , _ . ... - ,,-.1.,, , .-..... ,-. 4-7,-‘.,_ _-,,,, , ,--..,.nt ,. ... , ,.. .._ . ... „...,, ....,.44-- , - ' : s• !..,•57, -” ..::'-it_„ , -.-'"`. a 1 •<:rz, ,, ----. II - 4,, . ':- , -c ..t.-..,,-1-_ .. , -:, -,-- 4-- k 441,-- .:-,‘ 1 .,'. : '' —''4,1•:'• ' / , Op/ , , . 4 ,,,,„.„.,' ',-7,, . - : ti A, t7 • ). ' .•ft— ... ... -."'-''""w" 1 4 D -i00 - ok. _ , ,., ,• ‘;-,-.. ,_. 1 1 , , . ISI,.. - t '' ' " ?•!'`,...., 741:,) .:1. , '.',. i.1 '''' .:.- • tlit, - s; ,, I -,- --F .--, ,, lyi . _ , 1 ..,,,,...4 .,., .. i-i , ., , ' ''i s.,Ili rj 14 , 11", ,til , 0 t''',„, _ 0 r .., ,„.. . , ... , .., ... . , „. ...,...„.„. ..,...., ..,,. ••••> 4 •■• r 47,0 .- i I .„.,-' •■ t ,..;,41... , -- ? AVE s-t,--.. . 1 .. -::k ''''' I .4r,-„, . „, .. li ... • ' 71 '1.1 41 PK,r- , - . 4 .., -,, 1,2-- .i•" ,,,,.,..,%.,_.„x,,&1„--.--•,7, *I 1 .1 ' ... , ' .•,-""7:-."'7::, '' L1,..1 vi• t ' - ': '' 6,' if 01 ' ::::„..7:ii,• ;:i',.,p•s?!-, „4.1.1iti i 1 : 1-1-,: i - .:1-44 -4 —I ' '- .1 ' '' _ s ...,.. II • 'Li•in 1.-47r; ''''.. 110....,;..,....,„... ..., k - ,;;;-• 1 s,, • k 1 'owls.1.5. .1.■'.;4 4,., '1 1,•'..s,':*. ‘'`,":.: '-': g ... -: ,i,j+10%.1,..,,W._ ' 7,,,witi."711 6577 1 L ty i .A. 1 •'-'••-:1• - ‘'i i•`'• . .,', ;,‘;',..Z! - .- .' ''' • T- - .10. - 'III:- . ,±"v. -•• , 1 . .. .' .....:` .....,..t,_.., i ... ' L-,... i„...11-1 .2, - _ -1 ' lanitlit' - -- ,. - ... -. .. -...., ...- - --;. 4, • • AKLA1.0 Ave4 4,p6 1 4.10, ''• .,,,r , -4, : , „.-va., ,,,, :::,111 '•:.?i,. n".,1,31t 4 `...: - • -_11 1."9441, 1 , 1,, 1 . I ,- ,i- ..-:.■,a- - 71'g' "-- ''''' ' '^ , `..„.,., --,',..i."1-' ■-",.. , , :.:1;,i-. ,*,_$6'4 --, ' 1 - • ' ' . ,.. . ,....,... _ I', ••••;,:—'..'„ —17-T"—; ,.:..11v,▪ -44. -2,2;.; "ig.,,, ,. 1 - . - .:'''•■',4 •• • ,.. ,, p ,,,....,,,,,_.,st. ; 0,, , ... . ,,,, : 2E -• - c', ''''.,.'f'•.:7,,,, ,'1=.■''-• kA-Iiii 1,,,,--;#.,-,.. - 1 ,,,,=41114k... .hl__:----.J.,-- .s.,--s--......._:,--- • I _c: vAs,,,,.. ' .. ■ .a- t ... .: .....• -.., „, ,...), ,, ; ••, reLO isi i .' , - E',':. .- -",.. - " ''-' - r . , , -i IL . ,, 1 •II 2. • .. ,. -,,..F.. ... , • ti -0 --. -' - -, -,4 I -' .. • -, -., - • -", *.‘ 111 '.. '.- ... - 0 ie. -4.*--<, ., ;'--•-..,.; .1 I. /•'• .1•••N J. J, '`'. -! - .4.,`!': r1:1 I.. --, '• 1 ' •- - 41.6-.. . .:: ,--A•.-0.a ...•_,'• •••• , - -- ••-•7,, & ,. .,,-7•...„4 _:•,. 1,,...1",-,- -••i, •-RI:- ,tr-- . Ire ' • A1„.. ....f, 1 ...,._. . . '..521 ...., •••• :-=-- 7 „,, of .4 -5- i.--,,..-r-....,... .? , 1 ',- 1 ..3.... - .--.--;. :. -...,..-_-,74. f.- ' - -,At 47, 4-4 likA1.- .1.''i, ,1 4 , , . - - ..4• _ .. , ' / . ■ S AVE S i - - " -1 1 "SitrgA0*-4V-E-4344, s .,..,,,. - ,, i.6 Z' 1 ..i. - I •-i, ,.., ,-, :en , /,' ■ • -',,,,.:tt,: -,,''..., 00 1 '-- k, V ,,,,-_, - a\ .-', X i4r, ,-4.- %1• -•',' 4'. ".;,-'' .- - '• •°,'„ I r 1 ' •••z• It — .-"-•'''' .■■.....Tht % ' • ° - „. . , ,,j ..t., " 1,-, t-- i lie ' I .- • .. 5 ,.-. .- i $.<= • • V,„, --'' -' CHICAGO AVE S al I a. . . ••S, • , - - " ,.-,' , f i , -• , 1 411 • .4,- - - i - --, ' ° -I;_ -.*, ,N., 1 ' ill* * -- 't 4. I '1 ,,,▪ -; I '11*v... 7.''.'-: 4r, 1 1 Ai 1 --.4 . 4* ,9 a.....:- ....„ ,, , • ..., ELLIOT AVE 5 1 -- '-' AVE — • tH......0-1' ' ' ■- J -'' '' -?' M..%..=, . . .,,,,,...... .1-'. ',,.,/, ;‘• 7 , ...leo, ... _., ,o- 4:-':' ' `r -t-ittr, ; _ , ... .: . .1 , ...„i..'':• ,,,,,;z4 - . -5:..-4,',',:e'',„;ae,•: *.i;4A- ‘• 4.---1•1,''';'04.=1*° "11 1 .,sl:-.:,'W '‘1'''•i r A • ,<$, ..4L„' ',. •, • '1 1;c, 6..' -.... -' --....v.:- _--,; 1 ,.1:- ‘---.. .z•.' -'''34 at-1 --,-,....4.--; ‘ 1 ,.. „. , t. .._. 4. ' ‘iti'''' ' •' ' -- ' 101AAvE S 1 --t'" .: ” '• . "en '1 %.•-•L j.' . - 1 .„.7. . ,'-. ....fr ' .. it. r•'•,... - i■'' . -!z.. Y 7., _••:', ., , _. :Ai ,„,_ ,' _..„ ;5,..4..... , r • ag .,.. -... x,,, .,,7 k... _ ' . 0 ..,. _ . - - .:=..,-:.- . -.. 'Pr A' '• -'-7112-1 - ' - . , .'' Alle , ' . I -Air'• ',i, ';' '-' ' ' . -"'"' 1/101 '• -V "•• . a 1 i , - - • - _ , - •-, , ,.. ,1 -.. ,-_-. -„,,,,..,..----., • , , '40,,......;., . - ., ,. .-=--,, '' -- • 1*.)?-,;6, • - 0. , .,-- •.,., ',4`.4. .,--rs,;- ',.. 1 -: .- -.MI6- "..- ".•6 ii"Vy" . .;.‘-..1---:-,:r.J1,,4 ,,- -`,.,.A., r, ' g. -tr, Api- ,:, 13 ' • , - -", -'• ' ' '' ' ''' 14 „ PAITP,4S011'”— s; ____-I 4 2-• ,•--....-,' ;. _ •- ,, "•'-''t-:-.-'^ Ala 4-* ,i1.,.4.... ..... .L I.■ ,,.... ..,..,...: Arria.' 46kk, .,M'K 41* - ....... 1, , -' T----. r%,, a•.o -,::-.4,1 'L, ...,•- ,.. .. . , ., •• W I i 1 l' 11;1 fi: • . it% . • -•57,; -..-,,,--.. '4;$4'•(-4.:i ,k:4,4..--41,:f. 1.=•14-1 - • fid.i,.f,' ' '?Si- • _. , . ,.. .. , ,-- .,,::,, _.•,. ,,...-. ,-, ., ' 4 "f = , If.• .,, '''''' Sill , .- .,„.•6;,11 -64. .6.-' A : ?■ t-4. .1... 7-7• ""- j' i '''''. ::, .. .,,_ .. , i. •••••••• .-' : • -- .. .k ' " - " '.. '..!•••-t j __ •-•F -7,-- ,..., .. ...1[1.0' • .. .,3....0 - 7 .40/1 . _. i,.,-:-•:.- , .':, '' - .'.• i- ■• , • , -, i.,., .- . ,....; •„.-- , ,,,., :-. -..., ,„,. - --.. H ,, • .4 ,,,, orr !-- MP' ..,. — 1 1, '1, . ,-, --• ,.• wgi,,,If '• ,.•,, ;0 IAA - -^ -...-.4, , I I - .-.. --- 11 - ` - - •- - - s..-7-r ,.,1 L'-' 1 . . - JF'' 1 . .r. •,- , ,., •-,-- ! I A____ •• 1 --' -- .7,C, P. 410-i ., _ . , ...... . a--- , s V:, .`.; . ... ,, • , 1 I, 1 in ;•-,,,y.-. ,i,_: ', , . , ! 4,‘,,...' .-3.4.., ..,tw. „'''.;.4 -.., ' ' '31'. •-.F., A .77. ..-0, _:,...-, ,- .1:_-....,A.:.-.-.-::- ..,-;:.- 41,11-_.:. s p - •_ , / , , , , ;, 1 r,--: - - . -•, ,.;v:-, , •-. , .--• • ...,, .„,- Ft ---, --..---E"' ' ,_, 1,, . g . _....-,4", •?' .1,, t-..},. :- .' 4 b.1/33...k 1, 1-, .3 .... 1'4.. ' / —- 41 ' - -- --, i ,,. or_ . , ,,,1,4,.. .t. -zakk 1 1 - ., 1- -, - . -,:..•.;-....,-..,., 4, 4--',.„ 1,- `1'.1.-::' , 1 q • : s'1....:',..e44:114, -',.... ,.."'..... .,,`-`1")1,.'.....*.-.1 I, •-. , ,,.......,,A t -..„., 1 . .:.-. ,nr-1..:'`` ,- ,• '',Lai' • 141 -I t,,,,i .... T'2 I.,' I ''''.r .-.1 .., ,,,,,,_,.--. 4 ,.w.4 - - -i• - ...-7, ve ... , , ,. I . , m . . , ..... ,... !..71 .' .. i.TH AVE S '' ..../401"'• - '3' 1 :i .0- . :...:„,, .-,•`. . • :,.:.xt. w A ,, 3 - 3_,ir„,,,„;...' ... . -,i- i•1 1. '.•;• '' lid ' ' ' .•7."` ‘:".,' "". I ' I i ,,,••..i . 'NI i )4?!.,4)07 .... -- - 7 ' ]...... ., ,,...pri.„ ... ! IP'2;- 4 Or E• •••,"- . , - > i.t.S., alt•-:---7.,_ ; [ Lij_t i ai ,, 1 I- ' • 1- ,',:•i-.-'`'.,'•-:. ''''-`', 4 i ' i -•-''''''' --„,- •; ':'I ' .- 1 5 ,r .; ,_ .,, L,,,,,i;• ........ .,.,.,..,- -=-_ ,, . J...— 11.6:,3311 n 7 IF ''' 5.; ..--. - -,,,,..- -: •e. ..,:, 4 ;:,...; - •-::, ,- i:,:„.„-- -1 . ...!..-,.,;,,,, • ..,,, , ,-, ,_.:„. 1 . ,„_•-„- p, _ ,.., .. ..,„ I '' ,, i (± --,.. .;; :-,- - i - , , , r_r_.r. -.:,i.t.... _ _• . , ., ., „ „ .. 11.. . .., ,„.,..,.., 1. . 1 ,_____ . , ,,, , h.. 'g„,,..,, , '\ 1 Ir' d_1%:,..:. ,', , .7., : ' ■ ' -/C 4 li 3' .3 3 '- . 3 - --".'".. 1.,.:.• :St..--.,i4 F.• i • • 1 as. —.- --.... . ._ : -..!.:•,,,"4: ,,.:',. .1. • F: 4i ,.. 4 '12, -..„:. j- -,- •'...' ,. ,':.:1 ,• •- 1 U' 's .*-''' ,' ..' ,:. :, , 1 • 11 , . a ., :'.' P.,, 11,,c.'-'. .. I,. .;, . i•.i,„_:_._ s ,.•■ * 411 . - • .I 1., -. rilkl I 1 I II. .3”; . , -0 "1 e_ "3,__ • ''' : ' ,t).t... C.: , . _ . ..„1 Qi .1 s • ' •--Trit-f L... -. .41k, 1,1) • I. . , it i 'I '''')!ig -‘1. . ' HI, I L_' 1 r‘:' _," ._ ., , , ..„. ,lzfl,3_; 53'33 :1' - _.,,,,.i ,•;....,;„..,.. -. ' -,. ' :,' . ... B. , USA ROUTE 3 BL000INGTON AVE 5 MSA ROJTE ,..., . .4 .......thZ...' . ''r-.-.--.. .4-it,/ r A 0 \ • ., . .*-. '' ■ :.', , ' 1 • ' '- --•`', .. •.':-:Jr ix. ':, '' I? 1 1 --'- .---1•; WV., '.'' ---4•:.!--•': .-!'.4.-.,. -' '''',„,dr' • .i•4 1 .'k_'. ., ••, -.„.; .1i: •,,::.!!. . •: !,.) .,' P.::, ;;_4.i.:. ‘& _ ''•-: ''`'., • .44- iii - v Ittit - - • •-•-,...': , _ • OP! .:'..:•:..";;: ::.. -7••..4i1.'",': '''n!'. -.:1 7.---'.('‘ '` S ,iii+FR-- 't -. " "'"-•"-:"-"' rt ,,,,124411---.'1. I'' . ., ,.. _ 4:`:_e''.'. t : ' ... -•..*,f; " ).' .4s,.1-'-.--1:::,s5" -.'.• i sk ' '=-1..-',.. L it f., -.1,+• , L .....,..i 4...,_,. - .. .,,,;',,..... .. .4 ; ...4 ,,....,__:,•-!. il .', - 1, ',_-..,;"''•-'i. ;" .,. . ' ..1; . . -*-1.: ' . • 'V,-,, . 1 1 . s, _, , -:.. •• . K"-- '' ',.....v. ' - — . -• • --,7•:,s.f,..ic- 16TH AVE S ..... . , A '''' . 3 3 ' n' n.,,n."..3:.. .3"3 ; pt-••-'..:..., :•:',4 4.-',---< . . -...-.- ..,.,.i-..-111L- ,=;,,••,,,. -.... .. . 4..- ..••••1'.. ...- -,.. .„. . .„ . .. ,?..-.:ma ?''.... --:, .-.!... : -, . ,-_-.•- - . ,-::. - ..] .,I_-_. 7- .4- L PREFERRED CONCEPTS Concept #4B — One-Way Cycle Tracks with 2 Sidewalks, Boulevard Between Vehicles and Cycle Track Project Goals Achieved Q Pedestrian 66th Street East of Nicollet Q Transit El Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following Guiding Principles: ? Commuter Bicyclist • Multimodal Design • Connectivity and Public Realm El Vehicle Safety • Design for People • Healthy Active Lifestyles El Environmental • Healthy and Active Lifestyles --, El Maintenance mot „IA_ CIF Project Goals Achieved El Pedestrian 66th Street West of Nicollet El Transit El Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following ? Commuter Bicyclist Guiding Principles: El Vehicle Safety • Multimodal Design Vehicle Safety • Connectivity and Public Realm Q Environmental • Design for People • Sustainable Solutions • Healthy and Active Lifestyles El Maintenance ® c_r1 RENUEDESl6(s 66th Street Reconstruction Project PREFERRED CONCEPTS Concept #2 — On-Street Bicycle Lanes with Sidewalks and Multiuse Trail Project Goals Achieved 66th Street East of Nicollet 2 Pedestrian D Transit E Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following Guiding Principles: Q Commuter Bicyclist • Multimodal Design 7 • Connectivity and Public Realm p Vehicle Safety • Design for People • Sustainable t and Active Solutions Lifestyles Environmental • Healthy and Active Lifestyles ' Eel Maintenance i, , Project Goals Achieved El Pedestrian 66th Street West of Nicollet 2 Transit 0 Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following D Commuter Bicyclist Guiding Principles: • Multimodal Design E Vehicle Safety • Connectivity and Public Realm • Design for People 0 Environmental • Sustainable Solutions • Healthy and Active Lifestyles E1 Maintenance • pp��1 „ 1 „ 1 ,. . 1 ..• irHnfln - /m^Kidley-Horn AVENGED-SIGN nAssociates, th Street Reconstruction Project ,ad As nc. n .r k 5 Inc.I , PREFERRED CONCEPTS Concept #4A — One-Way Cycle Tracks with 2 Sidewalks Project Goals Achieved Q Pedestrian 66th Street East of Nicollet p Transit ? Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following Q Commuter Bicyclist Guiding Principles: • Multimodal Design ' 0 Vehicle Safety • Connectivity and Public Realm • Sustainable lut Q Environmental • Sustainable Solutions • Healthy and Active Lifestyles Maintenance E MOW 4=1 Project Goals Achieved Q Pedestrian 66th Street West of Nicollet Q Transit ? Recreational Bicyclist Design influenced by the following r• ( Commuter Bicyclist • MultimodaliDesi El Vehicle Safety • Multimodal Design • Connectivity and Public Realm p Environmental • Design for People • Sustainable Solutions • Healthy and Active Lifestyles ? Maintenance --1,t____,_la ;---44-1— ________ __,T6-7'• ,L--1,--- aunnno _ E:marl ndl ociares AVENUE 66th Street Reconstruction Project CONCEPTS NOT ADVANCED Primary Reason Concept Not Advanced Ai -0, , Concept 1 -,.4.--ii*'. '''. .4,', :,‘,,,ok, • Does not ,,,...„, 17,'-, :,,t:,-- On-Street Bicycle - . - - -, 4,..,, ,....- ., . kt . accommodate Lanes with Two recreational Sidewalks 3 t Al 61______ -- t t_ _ .....it.....-,_...,__,___ bicyclists ■ i' • '''S..' .::'-". ' • Does not Concept 3 ,- , .,,,,,,,,., „.. , ,. Sidewalk and -40;-4,04,- accommodate , commuter .„ Multiuse Trail wit 1. i =_„....ii _,_____,__AL _ _JP__"'"•I_,_ _,A..a..a. bicyclists --- Li,-.2/1 reY-H°r" AVENUENSIGN El nd Assooates.Inc ,,A n, ,„ 66th Street Reconstruction Project ...., PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS •,,k.,..,., , -.., '1.1.,::::::;.'. ..,1-:',,, NW QUADRANT 66TH & LYNDALE NRW : li, V.,:, :J. , '''.', -7• i , .,. ..' ; ' .. ..7,-.'t. Cr- 7' ..7 Lm__m__---______I ...,,. N / .;;;1,, 0 50 100 2.67' '...` , • :..'. '''.',- . ''' •.''''''N.,: BLVD. i ( DRAFT 2' CLR ZONE 5' 2' 10' WB 11' 11' 6' 1 10' ... EB / . • „., :. ',' 0.5,---o- -1 6' . . • :v.:...”.-1-: :: , SIDE ONE RT TURN LANE THRU LANE THRU LANE MEDIAN LT TURN LANE '' 1..- I', 2 THRU LANES WALK WAY AREA I ' . . i ... ,,,-7-„,,,c,..-.:-!:.,..-:. EXISTING CYCLE ....-',. '' ,, PARK I NG TRACK . '. :Y7.\'''/:2. , SURFACE 1•5i 1_, 1: ...-;.'. . .. ' .-::::1 Ti?v4f1.1 LOT 1 =-0.- -4-- CONSTRUCT PARK I NG LOT AS NEEDED i . rjr■alp ..- -m■al •■■!.,...E.,.■ =KM= ..... . -- .... . . ' .., • .• *i -3.1 • 7 4 k ___ . .- ..t ' ,'.;;L'- • • 7 ----_. -i , • RI_ .11 7--,Tk' I .. ..: , 4E ', , • 1, ,,..,' . . 4Ettb.■------4.,_, '' ' ' ■., IWO 017 • • -j.::,; r-, ., , ,•. , ...::2,:•; ':-.- r.' . . tc'-;-. ,-: . . ......-..._Auh..------ ..- ,irs., Iik, 1..1 E . __ 1 !. ,..%, • ,,., -..,..,1 01,..,-: Air -_,.. .,. 0 •• : f'f , f. , .., ... I ,.. 1.,..4i. ...• t., . _ , , .., ,,. --, •TROPOS 1--'i.'STRUC T. '. ' `-;" '-r--:-Z‘'.. ' ,''''' , - / • 1% • LIMITS . , , p p, . .1..... , . 4. c aie.,;...a. :4,6, _ . ' ..';ii., ' - ,.. . '11,11:—-- z • , • ,, f---..-v*.-0..'-------- 1,,,. i" 1 .. .461 .... qv ,.._ .. .-40 " . 10....a.... i-t . //w ... a a • ' ' - -------4...---------. ... , ..;.-----":"Ti \-......■•••••••••w■-- 2.1 _ 1 2 lo ' • -- , •.. _ _.. ___ _ — iiii 4111,NMI ■...........■ ...*+.....-... .......■... .-- '"'". .._-.' 12' — --- - -- - ------- 4, _ CSAH 53 /4, —t _ _ ___-_-____.___._ 1 1 - s• ...t. — . _iip 414 - _-- ( 66TH ST ) % _ 11 _ .— —- — — -,-_ — ' 1 3 -- ___--- -- — ------- • -------' —777N'-' .14!Al 111.1!//. . ., 101.1111.1.11.11111.1111111111.111111.111.11.11"1"1"1111111.11.1.11— , ;:\ .-::. f/,/41,. .,. , •,.. -1 4Atit,„.... ri , r e _.... : . A_�r rt 1 4TH A fie ,'.ii." ,f..,s -i i m NIS ' ,, , % (----- v i I i, „ .•. 1,4 . 40,liw ' - WIN . , . ■ I I, - I ill -: i r4-) WI, �� r: ' R 1 i.r ' 1 l .4 .- . e • 1 • ' '' 1 mN J ,Z7 N z �_m . j 1 1 = 1 � - eg E xp$•0 1 l ( Ll 1 I �yX bZ Fl 1 h I m"r C I I- _L- 2=2 an U ,ll .. 1 . - - oym A a ,4, 4RtF. I 0-•. T ICI iii • III D 1 5TH A V- S (/) ' 7Z] -� -� I zM 1 1 > rn o TI 0-) -71 U) CY-1 ili 1 -I � c � D � ' � 9 -< K 0 V) z T ; i v 4 Li el-, , . 0 \I' F k = V !. v @ fi $ s $1 I --1 C ,o , t. � ICI _ t` + m 4;:t, — i y , ,..._ r. '� m .....rrM..."...ya..r..r. .._ _ ter, v / V , o<iv mD 13TH A V= S ,_ _ .' .r Emi-, q / F l g t I -- ib Q■ P �" C- 1 n-v -zo Y N NON — N .-• c m 0 -o n o m Z m �� CD m D �, Ir p 4 ,. ;„,, IP , \ \ , o r`` D G7 1 F, " ' -H -H DCn c� s o. I i i • 1---.'• I I D a-) ' lJ \ I 1 1 r15 I 1 20• _ u -H I I� o n t r a Y. mo ___= ,__. 7 x _,/, 1 4TH A 1. L A , 66th Street County Road Reconstruction Projects — Portland Avenue and 66th Street Please install a pedestrian lead-in, stopping all traffic from all directions for 10 seconds when the pedestrian button is pushed at 66th and Logan. My daughter was hit by a car while legally crossing 66th last year and my 2 children have almost been hit 3 times in less than 2 months this year 66th Street from France to Penn doesn't need any improvements. I've been here 25 yrs. Before any improvements, assessments of the contamination of hydrocarbons between Vincent and Thomas should be addressed. I think environmental health is more important than traffic. Design element photos-where are the bike facilities? Need better crossing opportunities for bike and ped. Need bike priority on 66th St. crossing under 35W. Give us something! Please consider adding a bike lane or bike path, and making sidewalks wide, even, and separated from the street. The sidewalks between Penn & 35W are in such disrepair, they are actually below street level at some points. Cars are constantly speeding, using 66th St. as a substitute for 62. Please find a way to slow them down, or separate cars from bikes and peds. I drive this road every day from Morgan to Bloomington and 66th South - Leave 4 car lanes wherever possible. More boulevard landscaping. New updated sidewalks. More pedestrian street lights. Feel there is definitely not enough room to include bike lanes (not necessary!). More designated crosswalk areas. Please also consider one-way cycle tracks on 66th.This would be safe and attractive to nearly all cyclists. I would like to see parking preserved as much as is possible. If 66th Street is widened due to right-of-way usage by the county,the result wold be losing approximately 6 parking spaces in front of A World of Fish. I think on street parking if gained in front of the business would help address this issue. I am concerned that if bike lanes are put on 66th Street we would not have adequate on street parking available. Maybe For 66th Street- Please consider lowering speed to 30 mph -the current 35 mph entices drivers to go 40/45 mph. Our family lives on Lynwood Blvd and my son bikes to RMS (Richfield Middle School) as well as soccer& baseball. I work at Best Buy HQ and bike to work. It is scary to cross at the 66th &35W interchange. It is not really safe for pedestrians or bikers. I think if the traffic flow was sloed, it would help and not allow to The traffic is very heavy(bumper to bumper) from 35W& 66th St. going west. The cars go down 66th St., then turn left at Knox, Logan or Morgan, speed down to 67th St.,turn right to get to Penn just so they don't have to wait at traffic signal at 66th & Penn. Please don't make the road smaller-keep it going in both directions with 2 lanes in each direction. Turn lanes will only encourage the drivers to turn and pass through Please consider strong traffic calming measures on 66th - 10 S lanes, boulevard trees, on-street parking. We need the Portland bike lanes to connect up to 66th,this is a continuous route to downtown. 3 lane configuration is very ugly. Could we have a center median and left turn lanes at intersections? Like Lyndale between 31st and 38th.. 66th Street from Xerxes to at least 35W needs to be at least 4 lanes-emergency vehicles and FD from Penn/Oliver cannot get on to 66th Street from the north during Am & PM rush hours-cars are bumper to bumper& have no where to go to ket FD onto 66th St. COMMENT I I I I I I I I E. AIL ....� —.._ Fix the flooding at 6th & Newton occurs during heavy rains-the 2 drains are not enough to handle the volume of water coming from Vincent Ave East&from 64& 65th Streets south to 66th. Morgan does not have this problem -only Newton Ave. Glad to see 66th rebuilt. Hopefully more neighborhood friendly than as a crosstown bypass. Sidewalks of at least 6' width and bike lanes woud be nice. I am not opposed to roundabouts (unlike many) as long as they are ped/bike friendly. Something different needs to be considered for the bus pulloffs at 16th &66th. Very difficult to enter 66th Street from off of 16th Ave., I'm a huge fan of the proposed bus improvements and sidewalk widenings! I bike to Best Buy using 66th and live in Minneapolis. I'd really love to see a 4 lane 66th with grade separated bike lanes. 75th is a fantastic example. Safety is so key in this circumstance. I'd also love more ???? I would like to see dedicated space for bike lanes, preferrably separated from traffic by means of 3 lane road from Nicollet east to Cedar with bike lanes (about like Portland Ave), provision for bicycle storage, bike racks, nice ride type bike rental availability, 4 lane road from Nicollet Ave Decrease/enforce speed limits on road. Can't get out of driveway on 66th Street or cross for park. Slow down traffic like Lyndale Mpls project?? I've had plow trouble, broken window&soiled home up 2nd level &across back. Also, seen 3 cars in mine& neighbors yards over the last few It would be nice to park on 66th in front of Hilihaus like in front of Carribou on Lyndale. In general, 66th Street is difficult to use, both in car or on a bike. And also as a pedestrian! I'm not sure whether the widths of the road would remain the same...that will likely have a huge impact on what can be added! Ideally, it would be nice (safe!)to have designated bike lanes (or 66th - not parallel because the bicyclists will still need to cross underneath 35W so the reroute is only so good); a designated turn lane (perhaps Currently, I bike from Penn Ave S to Lyndale Ave S - I also go from Penn Ave S over to Southdale area...just simple community errands. I bike on the side roads as much as possible because 66th is currently a "cross your fingers, hope for the best" type option. I don't think that a parallel street serving as a bike route is a very good option - it doesn't acknowledge safety, convenience for bike commutes. We still need to get under Traffic volume&speeds on 66th Street in particular is scary! This affects me walking& biking. Wish they would slow it down or get thru traffic I would really like to see 66th become a lot more bicycle/ped friendly. In the last 4 years living on 66th (1812 W.) walkers and bikers have started using the sidewalks a lot more. I myself use them quite a bit for these activities. In it's current state,the sidewalks are too narrow and biking or walking a dog seems dangerous. My ideal layout would be to have sidewalks and bike lanes on each side, one driving lane in each 66th St. nearly impossible to cross while walking. Impossible to make left turn on Sheridan from 66th. Speed on 66th could be lowered. Improved cross walks in Penn Ave area. Truck noise-road noise. I bike to work on 66th. It is dangerous especially at night. Side of roadway is terrible!! Lack of space to ride bicycles safely(no bike lanes). Bumpy road/curb intersections make it hard to ride bike on sidewalk. No provision for safe crossing by cyclists except at traffic lights, and that's not great. Lack of places to store bicycles at destinations (bike racks at stores/parks, etc.) Safety for pedestrians on 66th St. from Penn Ave.thru 35W (especially) proximity of traffic on street too close for comfort. COMMENT It is noisy to walk along 66th Street, and the sidewalks can feel close to the road. It is noisy to live on 66th Street (buses, emergency vehicles, Double roundabouts do not feel safe when a vehicle to your right could keep going around through roundabout but you want to exit to yur I am not currently hindered with the transport on 66th. I do own a house on 66th and the bus traffic shakes the house. The most important thing to me is not hurt local businesses and improve the infrastructure of the utilities that use/share the road space. I would like my house not Not safe to walk-speed of cars is out of control. 40-50 mph. Slow down traffic to 30 mph so police can ticket 10 miles or over- drivers know Need to make sidewalks wider!!! 66th has sidewalks too close with traffic too fast. I feel it needs to be much more pedestrian and bike accessible to encourage more people to visit businesses along 66th. It is also unsafe for kids going to school. Roundabout at 66th/Portland is hard for cyclists. Need a dedicated cycletrack/bike lane on 66th. Keep 66th from Cedar to Xerxes at least 4 lanes. Route bicycle traffic to alternate roadways east and west. Do not want to see roadways going Need a marked pedestrian crossing at Rac & Post Office. Traffic on 66th Street is too fast! I bike to work and my son bikes to school. The speed limit is 35 mph which almost allows drivers to go 45 mph. Turning left from Lynwood Blvd onto 66th Street is very treacherous as cars come around the curve at very high speeds. I would appreciate the 3 lane design which would slow traffic and give better Quality of life for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers. There is It is difficult to bike along 66th - sidewalks are rough - crossing street are iffy. Can't walk on 66th street- poor sidewalks. Challenging bike environment on 66th - must cross at 35W *Hostile cars (don't want to share road). I don't bike along 66th because there are no bike lanes. I don't like walking along 66th because sidewalks are too close to traffic-especially bad The sidewalks along 66th are TERRIFYING for my preschooler- uneven, slanting towards street, cars are speeding& running red lights. The I've had multiple close calls when cycling on 66th so I don't do that anymore. Even on Sat AM, biking to the farmer's market at 66th & Portland, No reason to bike on 66th Street. I have a car I don't need transit. My daughter was hit by a car while crossing 66th at Logan light legally w/light on her bicycle last year. 3 times since school started my 2 children have had near misses with vehicles while they were crossing legally at that light. What is needed is a lead-in at that crossing so that the light 66th Street is cracked, bumpy, and needs to be resurfaced. Sidewalks are dangerously narrow, cracked and dirty most of the time. Cannot cross 66th. Traffic is solid. MN nice is gone. I wouldn't want to bike on 66th St. as it's a race track. Since no turn on red at Nicollet Ave and roundabout at Portland,they keep coming, majority are speeding and don't want to slow down for anything or anyone. In winter sidewalk is hard to walk on and dangerous. Portland Avenue Portland Ave shoulder area is used for snow storage after heavy snowfalls- homeowners with driveways on Portland have 4 more feet of street to shovel out to get car onto Portland. This snow was put onto the sidewalk with previous 4 lane design. Maybe the sidewalk needs to move in? This could be a problem for the house at 7300 Portland (not my house but my neighbors). This house is close to street already w/small Light at 76th should be removed or replaced with a round-about. There are times no traffic on Portland and cross streets wait 1-1 1/2 minutes Should avoid grassy median on Portland. Reduced lanes on Portland has been a problem. Crosswalk at roundabout is a big concern. I am retired. Speeding and motorcycles make it noisy and difficult to walk Portland. It is also main corridor for police and medical vehicles. Light at 76th & Portland is terrible if on 76th -won't change until multiple cars are lined up. I avoid this intersection from E or W. Walking/biking down 76th is great due to path, but not so great when turning onto Portland. Living on Portland we pretty much need to use car to go shopping, school, etc. We still love living in Richfield as it is so centrally located to so Its very desirable to have the ability to walk on Portland where I live and go to church (Hope Presbyterian) but its so difficult because there is nowhere to walk on when there is snow or too close to splash if sidewalk is shoveled. I like the 2 lane on winter because the cars/vehicles are not so close to me w/c is a saftey issue. One time there was an accident&a vehicle Can't walk on Portland when raining or when snow because sidewalks hold water and spray from cars. The three lanes has improved the spray and snow piles also help spray. We would love to be able to walk to church on Portland but in dress clothes its often not possible. In spring lots of water does sit at end of driveway because of piles of snow in gutters. Love to see 3 lanes for biking down Portland. We use that often. General Distance, traffic volume &speed discourages bicycling. Hope that Lyndale will become a reality. Would really like to shop (walk) to local coop-great redevelopment plan. Street traffic- no bike lanes- (and sidewalks too close to street). No safe crossings. One indicator of the health of a community is the condition of their sidewalks/lack of them. As a public health nurse, I believe our streets are a hazard &a barrier to our community's health. I drive to other cities so that I can run outside. I do like the new 76th St. update!! I often stop my car,while driving,to avoid hitting kids/teens in the streets. Sidewalks are critical - I also like the three lanes on Portland. This update has made Speed of traffic! Need to enforce 35 mph. Sidewalks close to roadway. More bike lanes, room between street&sidewalk, no utility poles. The traffic is really bad in this area. Especially if you want to pull off the road to park for a restaurant. The area is also not very well kept up. Not sure on crime level but looks rundown and maybe not safe for stopping. Safety! Demographics of foot traffic is concerning. Sidewalks are uneven & not safe to use. I drive to other cities to run outside. I am retired and try to drive at off hours. I live very close to 66th & Portland and use streets for driving quite often. Sometimes its hard to cross the streets quickly enough I hate roundabouts. Generally, if possible, I avoid them. I haven't lived here very long (4 mos) but the transit looks convenient. Good lighting, benches and shelters are beneficial. Bus stops and left turns. Too old to bike-safety-weather- noise. Too old to walk-weather- noise. Unneccessary to use transit. Walking-safety in neighborhood. Bus-clientele. Sidewalks! I walk from bus stops and the sidewalk in the summer is crooked -tripping hazard. Also because it is so close to traffic that is driving fast! It is scary. Winter is 10X worse. Even if its shoveled,the ice layer that forms makes the possibility of falling into oncoming traffic very high. 4 lane roundabouts do not work. Too much lane changing inside roundabout. Pedestrian lane is too close to roundabout which can backup aytomobile traffic. Yield (?) signs are not obeyed. Speeding in roundabouts is possible. Width of sidewalk on 66th is too narrow. You literally have to step into the street to get around other peopleor trash. Lighting is poor for night ped activities both 66th and Portland. I also do not feel safe biking with two lane traffic both directions with current road width. County Road Reconstruction Projects — Portland Avenue and 66th Street 66th Street 1111111111111M ,„ Please install a pedestrian lead-in, stopping all traffic from all directions for 10 seconds when the pedestrian button is pushed at 66th and Logan. My daughter was hit by a car while legally crossing 66th last year and my 2 children have almost been hit 3 times in less than 2 months this year since school 66th Street from France to Penn doesn't need any improvements. I've been here 25 yrs. Before any improvements, assessments of the contamination of hydrocarbons between Vincent and Thomas should be addressed. I think environmental health is more important than traffic. Design element photos-where are the bike facilities? Need better crossing opportunities for bike and ped. Need bike priority on 66th St. crossing under 35W. Give us something! Please consider adding a bike lane or bike path, and making sidewalks wide, even,and separated from the street. The sidewalks between Penn &35W are in such disrepair,they are actually below street level at some points. Cars are constantly speeding, using 66th St. as a substitute for 62. Please find a way to slow them down, or separate cars from bikes and peds. I drive this road every day from Morgan to Bloomington and would not mind it taking 66th South - Leave 4 car lanes wherever possible. More boulevard landscaping. New updated sidewalks. More pedestrian street lights. Feel there is definitely not enough room to include bike lanes (not necessary!). More designated crosswalk areas. Please also consider one-way cycle tracks on 66th.This would be safe and attractive to nearly all cyclists. I would like to see parking preserved as much as is possible. If 66th Street is widened due to right-of-way usage by the county,the result wold be losing approximately 6 parking spaces in front of A World of Fish. I think on street parking if gained in front of the business would help address this issue. I am concerned that if bike lanes are put on 66th Street we would not have adequate on street parking available. Maybe routing the bike lanes 1 block off For 66th Street- Please consider lowering speed to 30 mph -the current 35 mph entices drivers to go 40/45 mph. Our family lives on Lynwood Blvd and my son bikes to RMS (Richfield Middle School) as well as soccer& baseball. I work at Best Buy HQ and bike to work. It is scary to cross at the 66th & 35W interchange. It is not really safe for pedestrians or bikers. I think if the traffic flow was sloed, it would help and not allow to get out of control. People rarely stop when turning right on red to enter 35W southbound fromm 66th. There is little to no enforcement of the No Right on Red from 35W The traffic is very heavy(bumper to bumper)from 35W&66th St.going west. The cars go down 66th St.,then turn left at Knox, Logan or Morgan,speed down to 67th St.,turn right to get to Penn just so they don't have to wait at traffic signal at 66th & Penn. Please don't make the road smaller-keep it going in both directions with 2 lanes in each direction. Turn lanes will only encourage the drivers to turn and pass through the neighborhoods. Bike Please consider strong traffic calming measures on 66th -10 S lanes, boulevard trees,on-street parking. We need the Portland bike lanes to connect up to 66th,this is a continuous route to downtown. 3 lane configuration is very ugly. Could we have a center median and left turn lanes at intersections? Like Lyndale between 31st and 38th.. 66th Street from Xerxes to at least 35W needs to be at least 4 lanes-emergency vehicles and FD from Penn/Oliver cannot get on to 66th Street from the north during Am & PM rush hours-cars are bumper to bumper& have no where to go to ket FD onto 66th St. Fix the flooding at 6th & Newton occurs during heavy rains-the 2 drains are not enough to handle the volume of water coming from Vincent Ave East& from 64&65th Streets south to 66th. Morgan does not have this problem -only Newton Ave. Glad to see 66th rebuilt. Hopefully more neighborhood friendly than as a crosstown bypass. Sidewalks of at least 6'width and bike lanes woud be nice. I am not opposed to roundabouts (unlike many) as long as they are ped/bike friendly. Something different needs to be considered for the bus pulloffs at 16th &66th. Very difficult to enter 66th Street from off of 16th Ave., especially when I'm a huge fan of the proposed bus improvements and sidewalk widenings! I bike to Best Buy using 66th and live in Minneapolis. I'd really love to see a 4 lane 66th with grade separated bike lanes. 75th is a fantastic example. Safety is so key in this circumstance. I'd also love more ???? development I would like to see dedicated space for bike lanes, preferrably separated from traffic by means of 3 lane road from Nicollet east to Cedar with bike lanes (about like Portland Ave), provision for bicycle storage, bike racks, nice ride type bike rental availability,4 lane road from Nicollet Ave west to Xerxes Decrease/enforce speed limits on road. Can't get out of driveway on 66th Street or cross for park. Slow down traffic like Lyndale Mpls project?? I've had plow trouble, broken window&soiled home up 2nd level &across back. Also, seen 3 cars in mine&neighbors yards over the last few years! It would be nice to park on 66th in front of Hilihaus like in front of Carribou on Lyndale. In general, 66th Street is difficult to use, both in car or on a bike. And also as a pedestrian! I'm not sure whether the widths of the road would remain the same...that will likely have a huge impact on what can be added! Ideally, it would be nice (safe!)to have designated bike lanes(or 66th -not parallel because the bicyclists will still need to cross underneath 35W so the reroute is only so good); a designated turn lane (perhaps with the current width, a Currently, I bike from Penn Ave S to Lyndale Ave S- I also go from Penn Ave S over to Southdale area...just simple community errands. I bike on the side roads as much as possible because 66th is currently a "cross your fingers, hope for the best"type option. I don't think that a parallel street serving as a bike route is a very good option-it doesn't acknowledge safety, convenience for bike commutes. We still need to get under the highway-plus, having Traffic volume &speeds on 66th Street in particular is scary! This affects me walking&biking. Wish they would slow it down or get thru traffic to other I would really like to see 66th become a lot more bicycle/ped friendly. In the last 4 years living on 66th (1812 W.) walkers and bikers have started using the sidewalks a lot more. I myself use them quite a bit for these activities. In it's current state,the sidewalks are too narrow and biking or walking a dog seems dangerous. My ideal layout would be to have sidewalks and bike lanes on each side,one driving lane in each direction and a center turn lane. 66th St. nearly impossible to cross while walking. Impossible to make left turn on Sheridan from 66th. Speed on 66th could be lowered. Improved cross walks in Penn Ave area. Truck noise- road noise. I bike to work on 66th. It is dangerous especially at night. Side of roadway is terrible!! Lack of space to ride bicycles safely(no bike lanes). Bumpy road/curb intersections make it hard to ride bike on sidewalk. No provision for safe crossing by cyclists except at traffic lights, and that's not great. Lack of places to store bicycles at destinations (bike racks at stores/parks, etc.) Safety for pedestrians on 66th St.from Penn Ave.thru 35W (especially) proximity of traffic on street too close for comfort. It is noisy to walk along 66th Street, and the sidewalks can feel close to the road. It is noisy to live on 66th Street (buses, emergency vehicles, etc). It Double roundabouts do not feel safe when a vehicle to your right could keep going around through roundabout but you want to exit to yur right. I am not currently hindered with the transport on 66th. I do own a house on 66th and the bus traffic shakes the house. The most important thing to me is not hurt local businesses and improve the infrastructure of the utilities that use/share the road space. I would like my house not to shake. Not safe to walk-speed of cars is out of control. 40-50 mph. Slow down traffic to 30 mph so police can ticket 10 miles or over-drivers know you can do 45 and not get a ticket. Even the buses are speeding. Need to make sidewalks wider!!! 66th has sidewalks too close with traffic too fast. I feel it needs to be much more pedestrian and bike accessible to encourage more people to visit businesses along 66th. It is also unsafe for kids going to school. Roundabout at 66th/Portland is hard for cyclists. Need a dedicated cycletrack/bike lane on 66th. Keep 66th from Cedar to Xerxes at least 4 lanes. Route bicycle traffic to alternate roadways east and west. Do not want to see roadways going from one lane to two multiple times in a several mile stretch. Need a marked pedestrian crossing at Rac& Post Office. Traffic on 66th Street is too fast! I bike to work and my son bikes to school. The speed limit is 35 mph which almost allows drivers to go 45 mph. Turning left from Lynwood Blvd onto 66th Street is very treacherous as cars come around the curve at very high speeds. I would appreciate the 3 lane design which would slow traffic and give better quality of life for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers. There is always a fear of driver rage on It is difficult to bike along 66th -sidewalks are rough -crossing street are iffy. Can't walk on 66th street-poor sidewalks. Challenging bike environment on 66th- must cross at 35W *Hostile cars (don't want to share road). I don't bike along 66th because there are no bike lanes. I don't like walking along 66th because sidewalks are too close to traffic-especially bad in The sidewalks along 66th are TERRIFYING for my preschooler-uneven, slanting towards street, cars are speeding&running red lights. The sidewalks are I've had multiple close calls when cycling on 66th so I don't do that anymore. Even on Sat AM, biking to the farmer's market at 66th & Portland, I've No reason to bike on 66th Street. I have a car I don't need transit. My daughter was hit by a car while crossing 66th at Logan light legally w/light on her bicycle last year. 3 times since school started my 2 children have had near misses with vehicles while they were crossing legally at that light. What is needed is a lead-in at that crossing so that the light stays red in all directions for 10 seconds when the pedestrian button is pushed. COMMENT 66th Street is cracked, bumpy, and needs to be resurfaced. Sidewalks are dangerously narrow, cracked and dirty most of the time. Cannot cross 66th. Traffic is solid. MN nice is gone. I wouldn't want to bike on 66th St. as it's a race track. Since no turn on red at Nicollet Ave and roundabout at Portland,they keep coming, majority are speeding and don't want to slow down for anything or anyone. In winter sidewalk is hard to walk on and dangerous. Portland Avenue Portland Ave shoulder area is used for snow storage after heavy snowfalls- homeowners with driveways on Portland have 4 more feet of street to shovel out to get car onto Portland. This snow was put onto the sidewalk with previous 4 lane design. Maybe the sidewalk needs to move in? This could be a problem for the house at 7300 Portland (not my house but my neighbors). This house is close to street already w/small front yard. Better Light at 76th should be removed or replaced with a round-about. There are times no traffic on Portland and cross streets wait 1-1 1/2 minutes to turn. Should avoid grassy median on Portland. Reduced lanes on Portland has been a problem. Crosswalk at roundabout is a big concern. I am retired. Speeding and motorcycles make it noisy and difficult to walk Portland. It is also main corridor for police and medical vehicles. Light at 76th & Portland is terrible if on 76th -won't change until multiple cars are lined up. I avoid this intersection from E or W. Walking/biking down 76th is great due to path, but not so great when turning onto Portland. Living on Portland we pretty much need to use car to go shopping,school,etc. We still love living in Richfield as it is so centrally located to so much. Its very desirable to have the ability to walk on Portland where I live and go to church (Hope Presbyterian) but its so difficult because there is nowhere to walk on when there is snow or too close to splash if sidewalk is shoveled. I like the 2 lane on winter because the cars/vehicles are not so close to me w/c is a saftey issue. One time there was an accident&a vehicle landed on Can't walk on Portland when raining or when snow because sidewalks hold water and spray from cars. The three lanes has improved the spray and snow piles also help spray. We would love to be able to walk to church on Portland but in dress clothes its often not possible. In spring lots of water does sit at end of driveway because of piles of snow in gutters. Love to see 3 lanes for biking down Portland. We use that often. Maybe we could have parking General Distance,traffic volume&speed discourages bicycling. Hope that Lyndale will become a reality. Would really like to shop (walk)to local coop-great redevelopment plan. Street traffic-no bike lanes-(and sidewalks too close to street). No safe crossings. One indicator of the health of a community is the condition of their sidewalks/lack of them. As a public health nurse, I believe our streets are a hazard & a barrier to our community's health. I drive to other cities so that I can run outside. I do like the new 76th St. update!! I often stop my car,while driving,to avoid hitting kids/teens in the streets. Sidewalks are critical - I also like the three lanes on Portland. This update has made Portland more safe Speed of traffic! Need to enforce 35 mph. Sidewalks close to roadway. More bike lanes, room between street&sidewalk, no utility poles. The traffic is really bad in this area. Especially if you want to pull off the road to park for a restaurant. The area is also not very well kept up. Not sure on crime level but looks rundown and maybe not safe for stopping. Safety! Demographics of foot traffic is concerning. Sidewalks are uneven& not safe to use. I drive to other cities to run outside. I am retired and try to drive at off hours. I live very close to 66th & Portland and use streets for driving quite often. Sometimes its hard to cross the streets quickly enough I hate roundabouts. Generally, if possible, I avoid them. I haven't lived here very long(4 mos) but the transit looks convenient. Good lighting, benches and shelters are beneficial. Bus stops and left turns. Too old to bike-safety-weather-noise. Too old to walk-weather-noise. Unneccessary to use transit. Walking-safety in neighborhood. Bus-clientele. Sidewalks! I walk from bus stops and the sidewalk in the summer is crooked-tripping hazard. Also because it is so close to traffic that is driving fast! It is scary. Winter is 10X worse. Even if its shoveled,the ice layer that forms makes the possibility of falling into oncoming traffic very high. I love the ??? 4 lane roundabouts do not work. Too much lane changing inside roundabout. Pedestrian lane is too close to roundabout which can backup aytomobile traffic. Yield (?) signs are not obeyed. Speeding in roundabouts is possible. Width of sidewalk on 66th is too narrow. You literally have to step into the street to get around other peopleor trash. Lighting is poor for night ped activities both 66th and Portland. I also do not feel safe biking with two lane traffic both directions with current road width. SWEET. County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS OPEN HOUSE #3 SUMMARY Meeting Purpose Quick Summary The goal of the open house was to reinforce Meeting Date May 1,2014 what was heard at the previous open houses, Location Wood Lake Nature Center share project developments,solicit input on People Signed In 133 design alternatives, and provide an updated Surveys Completed 49 schedule and next steps for the project. Comment Sheets 15 Completed Materials Available • Context Boards explaining schedule and budget,guiding principles,what we've learned,what we've done, and conflict points • Process Boards showing project problem statement and project goals • Design Concept Boards showing preferred options for different roadway cross sections(2,4A, and 4B) and concepts not advanced (1 and 3) • Intersection Concept Boards showing preferred intersection concepts with safety benefits and tradeoffs(closed raise median, roundabout, and full access median) • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Information for attendees to reference • Corridor Plots with an opportunity to provide post-it comments • Survey to collect feedback on direction and preference of design alternatives • Comment Cards to provide general feedback on the project • Metro Transit information including Orange Line BRT on I-35W with station at 66th • Mindmixer online tool to gather feedback following the open house Survey Results Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the project process and proposed design concepts: • All but two respondents thought that common themes from previous open houses were accurately captured or were unsure because they weren't at the previous open houses • 73%agreed the written problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community • 86%or respondents agreed that reducing speed and conflict points would improve safety Attendees were also asked to rank three design concepts,from most to least likely to foster the vision of the community as reflected in the Guiding Principles: • No single concept emerged as a unanimously preferred option for the corridor • Design concept#4B performed best in this exercise with the most first-choice rankings(16) Ranking of Design Concepts Count by Ranking #2 #4A #4B COUNT-1st 11 8 16 COUNT-2nd 9 14 7 COUNT-3rd 11 9 10 Half of all survey respondents indicated that they would support an alternative that impacts property if it was necessary to successfully address the existing problems within the corridors. Of the remaining respondents, half were against property impacts and half were unsure. When asked about intersection concepts, people generally agreed that raised medians would improve safety along 66th Street. Full access medians were also viewed positively for safety benefits. Most respondents agreed that roundabouts would improve safety.The response to rectangular rapid flashing Page 1 of 4 Are6ctsbu d& SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 56th Street LTREETS r al a tern beacons was mixed on whether or not this tool would improve safety.These opinions are residents' perceptions based upon open house displays and are shown in the table. Intersection Concepts—Residents'Perceptions of Whether Tools Would Improve Safety Based Upon Open House Displays t F c aan Cb c � � S, 1Ves No °Mpybe, Raised Median 17 5 3 Roundabout 21 10 2 Full Access Median 14 6 5 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 9 10 3 Public Comments—Common Themes The summary below includes feedback from comment sheets, surveys, and Mindmixer online tool. Specific comments are available in the detailed comment log. General • Some respondents requested three lanes of traffic and others requested five lanes of traffic • Comments were received that provided general support for the project and process • Slower speeds and enforced speed limits along 66th Street were requested • Concerns were expressed regarding the cost of the project Impacts • Right of way impacts were a concern of many respondents • Concern was expressed for traffic impacts associated with reducing traffic lanes • Other concerns expressed included noise impacts and buried utilities Multimodal • Many respondents commented on proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements.The need for bicycles lanes was questioned by some;whereas, others expressed support for bicycle lanes (17 support bicycle improvements, 12 oppose bicycle improvements) • Comments were received to keep bicyclists separate from vehicles,put bicyclists on the road, and separate bicyclists from pedestrians • While support for Orange Line BRT was received,concerns were expressed regarding traffic impacts of buses making stops Intersection Concepts • Comments were received in favor of and in opposition to roundabouts(7 opposed, 3 support) • Support was shown for single-lane roundabouts over multiple lanes(2 comments received) • Some respondents showed support for RRFB,while others said the improvement is unnecessary • A desire was expressed to maintain left turn access along 66th Street • Comments were received in support of boulevards and corridor beautification;others felt boulevards are unnecessary Other • A desire was expressed to address parking near Lyndale • Comments were received to consider maintenance impacts of snow removal • Some respondents requested a crosswalk be added at 3rd Avenue* • A request was made to address drainage at Newton Page 2 of 4 165tigft P654244. SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS. MDEEti't.IiIItkid as Page 3 of 4 166W6 AIWA SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS lot tab.. Public Comments—Post-It Note Summary The Summary below includes feedback from corridor plots. Traffic Operations (17 comments) • Reduce to three lanes, less impacts(4 comments) • Reduced lanes will add more traffic to side streets(1 comment) • Keep five lanes to reduce congestion (4 comments) • Add more grass medians(2 comments) • Close/restrict a few entrances along 66th Street(5 comments) • Convert roundabouts to one lane (1 comment) Pedestrian Safety(10 comments) • Safer crossings(at roundabouts(3 comments)and a few other locations) • Slow down traffic Transit Stops • Bus pull-off SE of 66th and 16th blocks view of drivers • Drivers unable to get around buses at bus stops • Build better bus shelters On-Street Parking • Want on-street parking on east end Bikes • Bike lanes—yes • Bike lanes—no Page 4 of 4 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG C ROADWAY COMMENT Jim SOURCE J. a._. 1 Open Concepts 66th Street Prefer [Concept 4B] as it best addresses snow removal without impacting walk, cycle; House#3 Better visibility for pedestrian crosswalks like Burnsville Hospital crossings 2 Open Bike/ped; RRFB 66th Street [Design Concept] -have bike lanes separate from pedestrians(see diagram on survey); House#3 [Property Impacts] - need more information; [Additional Comments] - Rapid Flash Beacon Very much needed 3 Open RRFB;general 66th Street [Intersection Concepts] RRFBs seem as though they would be a good option at minor House#3 intersections; [Additional Comments] I'm excited about the overall direction of the project-all of the proposals seem as though they will greatly improve the usability of 66th Street and benefit Richfield. 4 Open Roudabouts; 66th Street [Roundabout Intersection Concept] Like the existing roundabouts; [Additional House#3 crosswalks Comments]A crosswalk at 3rd Avenue and 66th Street would be a good idea. The high ground affords a good view both east and west for the pedestrian, and good visibility of a pedestrian for drivers. It is also about 1/2 way between Portland Ave. and Nicollet Ave. 5 Open n/a Roundabouts; 66th Street [ Roundabout Intersection Concept] No -single lane only; [Additional Comments] Why House#3 bicycles all the concern about "commuter bikers?" Any study as to the number affected? Two lane roundabouts do not work! Too much lane changing. 17th Ave and Portland don't need such if roadway is reduced to a single lane. 6 Open Speed 66th Street [Speed/Conflict Points] Participant crossed out the word speed and circled the words House#3 conflict points. 1/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT -? SOURCE 7 Open RRFB; concepts; 66th Street [Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon] Meh (shrug); [Additional Comments] - I don't have House#3 3-lane a strong preference between the concepts. I would like to see the city and county be a conversion bit more aggressive in converting to a 3-lane. I think the safety benefits are worth the peak-hour congestion. Let's see if we can extend the 3-lane section further west. We are not slaves to existing traffic volumes. We can build what we want. Please feel empowered to be bold! I'd like to see the layout consider the addition of more continuous medians with landscaping that convert side streets to right-in/right-out. Please plan ahead for the future bike boulevards on north/south streets. Construct medians now that will limit motorized traffic on these streets and provide opportunities for refuge islands for bikes/peds. The safety benefits for everyone (including motorists) outweigh the inconvenience of choosing a new route. The safety benefits for bike/peds will be substantial. I would rather cross as a pedestrian at an unsignalized intersection (right-in/right-out) with a landscaped refuge island than at a traffic signal. I would love to see the roundabouts converted to a single circulating lane. 8 Open Bicycles; 66th Street [Concept 2]Allows bikers to use street as a transportation route w/o impacting walkers House#3 maintenance; or children biking on path. Also solves plowing issues for city-and saves from taking speed homes. [Concept 4] PLEASE put hard core bikers on the street. [Concept 4B]Terrible Concept. Sidewalk too small!! Bikers will get walkers on path. More snow removal issue. [Additional Comments] Please slow speed down to 30 MPH. 9 Open Boulevard; 66th Street [Concept 2) Don't need boulevard; [Additional Comments]Just like Portland Ave Project House#3 bicycles; and 66th St project it's overkill. Homeowners and small business always suffer. Bikers general are the new hot buttons. This is Minnesota. Why are we so willing to inconvenience so many people for so few. 2/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT ' • URCE> W 10 Open (I live right ON ROW impacts 66th Street [Addressing the Problem] Not mine for my property. [Speed/Conflict Points] Yes, but I House#3 66th St.) do not believe 66th St is the right street for a bike path! Too much traffic. In S. Mpls. They don't put bike paths on the busiest streets, but rather 1 or 2 streets over from the busiest. Example Bryant Ave NOT Lyndale Ave for bikes. [Design Concepts] Whichever option takes NONE or the LEAST of my front yard on 66th Street. [Additional Comments] I do not want to lose any of my front yard I just purchased. I also want to keep the house and yard slightly higher than the sidewalk and road if you do take some of my yard. I (we)want whichever option takes the LEAST of our front yard. I live right on 66th and don't want a foot and road traffic nearer to my picture window where I spend most of my time at home. Please advise. 11 Open ROW impacts 66th Street [Concept 4A] NO takes too much property on 66th St. [Concept 4B] NO takes too much House#3 property on 66th St. [Additional Comments] 66th St. certainly needs pavement improvement, but I am not in support of concepts 4A and 4B-way too much adjoining property would be impacted. 12 Open Traffic 66th Street [Additional Comments] Can the traffic now and in the future be handled East of Nicollet House#3 to Portland be handled by 2/3 lanes,where it backs up 1-2 blocks during rush hours coming up to Portland? 13 Open Bike/ped; 66th Street [Design Concept 4B] Please don't do! Too much space taken up w/pavement.; House#3 Traffic [Intersection Concepts Full Access] Eh...; [Additional Comments] Concept#4B seems to be overkill in accommodating cyclists. Option 4A strikes a happy medium - bike lanes for commuter cyclists, shared path for recreation. The amount of pavement shown in concept 4B makes the pedestrian experience less desirable; I'm concerned w/traffic flow when 66th between Portland & Nicollet becomes 3 lanes. Every time a bus stops & lets people off,traffic will be stalled... it also appears that the bus would be blocking the bike lane.; Try to green up the corridor where possible & provide as much Blvd. as possible to help separate peds from rd.traffic. 3/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG SOURCEL a. 14 Open Bus 66th Street [Additional Comments] I worry about bus traffic on the 3 lane roads. Will it back up House#3 traffic every time they stop? 15 Open 3-lane; 66th Street [Additional Comments] I do not like the three lane vehicle concept(one lane each House#3 pedestrians direction and a left turn lane). Four lanes are needed because of traffic volume. Especially, when the Crosstown Highway (62) is closed. Four lanes are also needed because of the city bus route. buses stopping will block traffic in a three lane concept. A current problem with pedestrians at major intersections, such as 66th and Nicollet, is that many pedestrians do not use the crosswalks (jaywalk), and many of those that use the crosswalks cross against the do not walk light. These practices are dangerous and cause traffic congestion. 16 Open 5-lane; cycle 66th Street [Additional Comments]The 5-lane design west of 35W is unacceptable. Cars drive too House#3 track; parking fast now-adding turn lanes will make the problem worse, not better I like both cycle track designs Parking should be addressed near Lyndale and within E 66th St corridor area. 17 Open 3-lane; 66th Street [Speed/Conflict Points] The existing road acts like a freeway. Difficult for emergency House#3 roundabouts; traffic to get through-do NOT narrow down to 3 lanes. ; [Intersection Concepts- Raised RRFB; Median] Leave as is; [Intersection Concepts- Roundabout] No Roundabout-hard to maintenance remove snow. Too many people cross at Logan to go to Fairwood Park.; [Intersection Concepts- Full Access] Leave as is; [Intersection Concept- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon] Good Idea. 18 Open Roundabouts; 66th Street [Property Impacts] Would have to see; [Intersection Concepts-Raised Median] on House#3 drainage Logan Ave.; [Intersection Concepts- Roundabout] Very bad idea to much foot traffic. Leave as is full intersection.; [Additional Comments]Address drainages at 66th 65 Newton. 4/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT SOURCE. 19 Open Resident Driveway 66th Street [Design Concepts] Do not like any of these!; [Additional Comments] Leave the area House#3 access; ROW west of Penn Ave alone. I live at Russell &66th - South Side, I need good driveway impacts; lanes access to 66th with the center lane as it is-(do not want median or other blockage. your plan takes my front property which was already taken some years back when 66th St was widened. Now you want more plus my big oak tree& putting my house front closer to traffic of any kind. I am very disappointed with the way Richfield is doing things! Hopefully you will listen to RESIDENTS MOST involved. Taking away any of the auto lanes on 66th would be a poor choice. They are needed because of the traffic especially when 62 or 494 are blocked to rush hours which are full of vehicles. 4 lanes&center lane is good here. 20 Open Transit 66th Street [Intersection Concepts- Raised Median] Purpose?; [Intersection Concepts- House#3 Roundabout] Ok; [Intersection Concepts- Full Access Median] Not Sure; Intersection Concepts- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon] Ok I guess.; [Additional Comments] Like the Orange Line concepts- hope the buses more frequently Wish Lyndale Station (66th & Lyndale)were a real station. 21 Open Intersection 66th Street [Intersection Concepts- Roundabout] 1-yes; [Intersection Concepts-Full Access House#3 concepts Median] 2-yes 22 Open boulevard; 66th Street [Additional Comments] Live on north side of West 66th Street. Very concerned re: House#3 access; noise boulevard planting,access, and NOISE. 23 Open 1918 W66th ROW impacts; 66th Street [Design Concepts] All concepts affect the south side-we feel losing homes in Richfield is House#3 St boulevards; not a good answer to enlarging a street with bike lanes, boulevards, etc.; [Intersection North East open house Concepts] We support all of these if the project must go through.; [Additional Corner of 66th Comments] Please use AstroTurf on boulevards-winter salt kills grass. Good and Morgan presentation-easy to understand-helpful persons running the open house. 5/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT,CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT 3 URCE 24 Open Crosstown Left turn access 66th Street [Intersection Concepts- Raised Median] x; [Additional Comments] It would be nice to House#3 Family Dental have a left turn lane :-) [to access Crosstown Family Dental]. 25 Open Bicycles; 66th Street [Additional Comments] Bike lane and Blvd are not needed on 66th St. Bicyclists don't House#3 boulevard; cost know which side of the road/street to drive on anyway. The Blvd.would be nice- but we don't need it because the trees are not needed. These concepts are too expensive to maintain plus to get that much room houses would have to go-which means less tax$generated. Resurface 66th period. 26 Open Bicycles; cost 66th Street [Design Concepts-All] Bike lanes not needed.; [Additional Comments] Bike lanes and House#3 wide sidewalks not needed and not wanted by vast majority of Richfield residents. Cost of proposed prospect way to costly-just fix the road (66th St.). 27 Open Richfield Bike Bicycles 66th Street [Additional Comments] I feel that#ldesign for bicyclists is safety for all users. Cycle House#3 Advocates tracks throughout would be the best. 28 Open Roundabouts; 66th Street [Additional Comments] Enough with the roundabouts. I am all for biking but I think not House#3 bicycles for 66th St. Let them use other routes. 66th is a main street for all of Richfield. Keep 66th 4 lanes as is. Enough with the bike rts. No other suburb has all one lane roads on main St. With all this concern about the roads take a look at properties around Richfield clean them up first. 29 Open 5-lane; bicycles 66th Street [Design Concepts-All] Go to 5 lanes- NO 3 lanes period.; Intersection Concepts- House#3 Roundabout] 1; [Intersection Concepts- Full Access Median] 2; [Additional Comments] Keep bike off of main roads for safety. 5 lanes concept is best for traffic flow and safety. 6/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 30 Open American Impacts 66th Street [Additional Comments]The only area of concept I would like to see changed are the House#3 Family affected side streets and adjacent properties. Please feel free to contact me for more Insurance details-952-927-9221/alissarl @amfam.com. 6950 France Ave., Edina 31 Open kathryn3quam ROW impacts 66th Street I live right on 66th Street so this impact me greatly. I just purchased a home at 2605 w. House#3 @gmail.com 66th St. 55423. I did NOT know of the reconstruction project until after I moved in in 2605 w. 66th April. It was not disclosed. My front yard, as it is, is one of the reasons I bought the St. home and am moving from a nice home in Mpls to Richfield. I am VERY concerned about and do not want to lose any of my front yard! As it is, I am close enough to the road and foot traffic. If the public walk-ways are even closer, it will feel crowded and overwhelming as we sit in OUR LIVING ROOM THAT DIRECTLY LOOKS OUT ON THE 66TH ST CAR& FOOD TRAFFIC. ALSO,the end of my front yard, which meets the current sidewalk, goes down a little toward the pavement(see pic& note). Grade currently goes down to street&this is VERY IMPORTANT AESTHTICALLY(house a little higher than roadway) and for water drainage AND litter reasons. I want the house &yard remain higher than the street! I and my co-owner, who is out-of-state but will send feedback in electronically, are very concerned and want to STAY involved in the decisions made about this reconstruction. Our vote will be to LOSE NONE OR AS LITTLE OF THE FRONT YARD AS POSSIBLE and to keep the yard/house slightly or somewhat elevated relative to the street, 66th. Thank you! 32 Open almtnair @aol Traffic 66th Street Please do not add to traffic volume problems at 66th Street West at the intersection House#3 .com entrance into the HUB near Rainbow, Popeye Chicken by creating a roadway into the area of holy Angels parcel to the south. Doing so would require widening the road for a LEFT turn lane for WESTBOUND traffic on 66th desiring to enter A.H.A. Holy Angels visitors should use existing 67th St access or 68th. • 7/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT SOURCE 33 Open Beautification 66th Street Please make this street beautiful! Raised medians are great-biking a must&safe House#3 sidewalks. I feel like this is a great opportunity for Richfield to move forward & look as good as neighboring communities. Sidewalks are currently VERY dangerous. Add LOTS of perennial plantings. Update Richfield Lake area its sad as it is. 34 Open Bicycles 66th Street *What is the demand/need for commuter bicyclists? House#3 *The most safe is having cars, boulevard,then sidewalk. *I don't like a bike path on the street-dangerous for cars. 35 Open jojegrote @ya Traffic; 66th Street *A lot of morning&evening traffic near our home (66th & 3rd Ave). We cannot House#3 hoo.com crosswalk imagine reducing 4 lanes to anything less. We had difficulty getting out on to 66th in 66th &3rd morning. *3rd Ave/66th could use a crosswalk-our kids can't get to south side of 3rd. "TOO MUCH traffic" &speed builds between Portland & Nicollet on 66th St. *Concern for 2/3 lane between Nicollet& Portland. High traffic volume times will have possibly more congestion. 36 Open sherlock @nau ROW impacts 66th Street I need a determination ASAP re: property @ 6601 Newton. House#3 yret.net 1. Will Richfield City take for flooding resolution at this corner? If so,when? 6601 Newton 2. Will Hennepin Co take this property this year-2014? Need to know-my mother who lives there, needs to move ASAP. Cannot sell if eminent domain is in place. 37 Open mascaglia @co General; 66th Street Good job on preferred concepts. Really like the 2 lane with center turn lane east of House#3 mcast.net maintenance Nicollet. I suppose we need 4 lanes west of Nicollet. Need area for snow. Like concept 2 unless it takes more land. But I think any of the concepts are acceptable. 38 Open Bicycles 66th Street In light of all the "takings" in every concept,why not do it right way-the progressive House#3 way-the way of the future with concept#4B (cycle tracks). 39 Open rhkmjk @comc General 66th Street Thank you for the opportunity to see project. Needed. Living on north side of West House#3 ast.net 66th St so definitely impacted. 8/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 •' COMMENT C ITY/ORG _ 111111111P SOURCE:. 40 Open sk2004vette@ Roundabouts; 66th Street Need crosswalks pushed further from roundabout so car's back end doesn't stick into House#3 comcast.net bus roundabout when pedestrian is in crosswalk(see drawing). Need bus pull offs so bus doesn't block lane (at Nicollet&66th and at bottom of 35W ramp @ 66th St. 41 Open 612-866-3922 4-lanes; 66th Street 4 lanes needed (at least west of Nicollet)! House#3 wlbnilsson @h roundabouts; NO Roundabouts! otmail.com speed; rush Enforce speed, but keep at 35mph! Enforce everything else too! hour Make side streets NO LEFT TURN and NO STRAIGHT ACROSS during rush hour? Have bicycles use sidewalks? I drive west on 66th about 7:00am and east about 4:45 every working day. I AM an expert on rush hour traffic on 66th! 42 Open blackpaul@ms Concepts; 66th Street I don't like any of the concepts. Just resurface 66th St. Sidewalks close to the street are House#3 n.com bicycles ok,we can't afford to have the Blvd. and trees as well as bike paths. Bike people ride the road anyway and have no idea which side to ride on. If they ride bikes there are bike paths for them anyway. 43 Open Jeff +57 @yah ROW impacts; 66th Street The plan west of Nicollet looks to me like maybe 10 houses will have to go. That means House#3 oo.com cost less tax dollars for the city and buying the homes& moving more people maybe out of Richfield. A bike path on east side of the street is ok& maybe a sidewalk on 1 side but please do not take more houses. We lost a tire store,gas station, print shop&several houses on Portland &66th. 44 Open Utilities; 66th Street I am unable to attend the meeting this afternoon on 66th street reconstruction. Two House#3 roundabouts main concerns are burying the utility lines,and increasing number of roundabouts along 66 street. 45 Open Roundabouts 66th Street Please don't build anymore roundabouts.They work in theory only. In reality they are a House#3 hazard due to the over abundance of stupid and incompetent drivers who don't even know they are supposed to slow down.They are also a danger to pedestrians, especially the elderly and handicapped, who aren't fast enough to dodge the vehicles that are supposed to yield but don't. 9/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 46 Open janne@flisran Concepts; 66th Street As someone who bikes, Option 4 is the best. I feel much more comfortable in protected House#3 d.com bicycles bikeways than in on-street lanes. Cars often use bike lanes as passing lanes or places to double-park, and that is difficult as a person on a bike. Moving the bike space to protected areas will also slow traffic more. 47 Mindmixer Concepts; 66th Street I prefer concept#2 best,then#3 then#4.#2 gives greatest access to all modes. I would bicycles consider bike commuting to work via 66th if there were bike lanes. I agree with the concerns in image#1. 48 Mindmixer Concepts; 66th Street I prefer Concept#3,then#2.. Concept#3 was used in Phoenix where I just moved from, bicyclists; ROW which helped avoid confusion for cyclists and pedestrians.That said, I am unclear as to impacts how these streets will be modified?The concept drawings seem to show that homeowners along 66th st may lose some of their property? Is this accurate? 49 Mindmixer Safety and 66th Street Richfield is difficult because of all the senior housing around 66th, Lyndale and the Speed surrounding streets. Lyndale Avenue for example between 494 and 62 is becoming dangerous because people do not obey the speed limit and drive 20 mph underneath it. People have to either sit behind people causing delays or try and get in to the other lane. If we turn it in to one lane each way with a turn lane then it will be even more dangerous. I like the idea as it creates safety for biking and pedestrians on the streets shown but if drivers do not contribute to safety it is more dangerous. On the bike lanes already converted we have noticed cyclists refuse to obey traffic rules by going through red lights, and stop lights, not using the bike lane,and going two abreast.All sides need to obey the rules of the road. Pedestrians need to obey them too by using the crosswalks when it indicates not when it is on no walk or not jaywalk. 10/16 • County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 CI /ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT 50 Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street I agree that the problem statement is accurate. I don't feel that reducing speed would improve safety as much as it would make you FEEL safer. I think other options to separate bike/ped.traffic from autos,along with clear safety markings and crossings would improve safety.To be honest as some who does not live on 66th directly, I would support it. 1. Layout 4 Best separation for each type.Also, keeps trees from edge of road that can cause sight- line issues from side-streets.Would be fine then also with the bike lane being unplowed in winter.Allowing for snow storage. 2. Layout 4 B Good separation, but don't like the trees so close to the road over time. 3. Layout 2 1. Least separation for bikes which in the high traffic zones in rush-hour would make many hesitate to use the new layout. 51 Mindmixer Speed 66th Street What are the project goals based on?One of the project goals is a "target speed" of 35 mph, but there's been no public input on that matter. I'm not sure how that goal was reached, and I don't believe it reflects the safety concerns from the problem statement. In fact, a high speed limit meets none of the eight guiding principles. 52 Mindmixer Storefronts 66th Street The street redesign is great but is anything being done about all the crappy store fronts? 11/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMIT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT SOURCE JiL Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street I like 4b,4a then#2. Richfield has the potential to be a really great city especially for young families. It would be better to have the bike lanes off the road for the safety of the bikers (especially with children biking) and for the sanity of all auto drivers out there who are afraid they will hit bikers at any moment. I'm really excited about the 66th construction.The city as a whole is rather dumpy especially around the Penn ave area. Hopefully this will infuse some new life into it. It is hard to convince people to move here when they drive around and see a large number of poorly maintained areas. I really hope the stretch from Xerxes to 35 is done first because that road is terrible!The potholes are so bad I'm afraid I will bust all four of my tires driving on it! 54 Mindmixer Concepts; 66th Street Agree to all questions, Rank 2 4A then 4B. I hope there would be more trees lining the storefronts boulevard.Also the corner of 76th and Lyndale is a great city landscape. How are you going to ask the store owners to clean up the store fronts...Like Super America on Nicolet and 77th is an eye sore...next to the almost gone landscape that was put in...how can you force owners of commercial properties to clean up and maintain landscape... 12/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 MEP 1,11 • 55 Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street Cross-section 2 is both safer and easier to maintain. Cross-section 2 will be easier to maintain plowing and sweeping. Do we have to plow and salt the bike paths separately in the winter? Remember there are quite a few that bike in the winter as well. Cross- section 4 only looks feasible in warmer climates. Cross-section 2 is also safe than Cross-section 4a or b. It might at first seem counter intuitive, but motorists are simply not looking for bicyclists on a sidewalk/sidepath.Also at every driveway and intersection,you are at much greater risk of being hit by a motorist than if you were riding on the road with traffic. Cross-section 2 would also provide for wider sidewalks and improve the environment for walkers and recreational/Juvenal riders who would not have to go compete with commuting cyclists. TLC's article on the problem with Sidewalks/paths: http://bit.ly/11ELesS As far as the question: "Do you agree that the problem statement in image#1 captures the overall concerns of the community?" —YES 56 Mindmixer Concepts; 66th Street I strongly agree with option 4b as a first choice. I am a 67 year old Richfield resident bicycles who rides a bicycle to my part time job at Southdale. Up until the last few years, I rode bicycle extensively with a large local bicycle club, averaging over 1000 miles per year on my bike. I have taken bicycle trips throughout the US.The separation provided with 4b or 4a makes a great deal of sense to me as an experienced biker and as a bicycle commuter. 57 Mindmixer Concepts; 66th Street I support 4b too. If you want to make a trail that's friendly for children,4b is the way to bicycles go. I have a one year old daughter and when she does ride bike in the future, I'd like to go with the safest option. 13/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG': . SOURCE,_, 58 Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street I have refined my idea after some thought and study. I think 66th St. has some very special requirements and situations. Unlike Portland which has a high amount of homes and residential driveways entering the streets, I have counted and 66th St. actually has relatively few driveways with longer stretches with no driveways going(Veterans Park, Holy Angels,etc). 66th is also Richfield's major east/west thoroughfare and has a high a amount of traffic(something 76th St. does not have). While I still think that#2 in general is safer for most general roads (especially roads peppered with multiple driveways) in this situation I think protected bike lanes on 66th Street would actually work better than on-street bike lanes. I prefer#4B since it would be easier to plow and maintain with the sidewalk during the winter. For safety, I think #46 is the winner for 66th St. and while I think#2 would be easier to maintain,#4B is a very acceptable compromise. 14/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) ROADWAY COMMENT SOURCE. 59 Mindmixer Concepts; lanes 66th Street More support for 4b.4b is by far the best option. Cycletracks would help tie east and west Richfield together. My wife and I would bike to more businesses in Richfield if the cycletracks were built. That said, all of the options are horrible west of Nicollet.There is no need for 5 lanes in this stretch.Three would be plenty.The proposed five lane cross section is typical Hennepin County Car Sewer that will slice real value right out of the heart of Richfield. Don't turn into Bloomington. Richfield is too good for that. A better proposal would be three lanes in most areas, especially west of 35W.On-street parking in business nodes would be a game changer if Richfieldwants to actually step up to their own adopted vision- no more suburban **** behind a parking lot like the O'Reilly Auto Parts or CVS. Also bus bulbs/far side stops would facilitate 66th St aBRT. 4B is the best of the presented car sewers. But please-don't make this a 5 lane stroad. 60 Mindmixer Concepts; lanes 66th Street 4b. Fewer through lanes west of Nicollet.4b seems like the best option with the boulevard protecting cyclists and pedestrians. I would cycle there with that configuration. Four through lanes west of Nicollet, however,seems completely unnecessary and will certainly destroy value in this part of Richfield and create conflict points with pedestrians. I would prefer to see the same pattern of two through lanes continued to the west. 61 Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street Cross section 2 shows most potential.The problem statement captures my concerns for 66th Street and reducing speed and conflict points would certainly improve safety. I would support alternate options that impact property adjacent to 66th Street, however since this is not my neighborhood, I would target the affected homeowners and get their direct feedback. 15/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 05/29/2014 62 Mindmixer Concepts 66th Street 4B would be the most aesthetically pleasing. Option 2 would be easiest for snow removal but option 4B would be the most aesthetically pleasing. I think sidewalk/bike trail snow removal would have to be a priority for bicycle commuters or they will end up on the road surface. 63 Mindmixer Bicycles 66th Street One thing--I've noticed in some places that bike lanes separated from the street tend to have slow speed limits(10 mph)which make them impractical for many bikers.Just something to think about as some of the designs have the bike lane right next to the sidewalk. 16/16 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion • ' SOURCE,., 66th 1 OH#4 Specific area general Widen out where we come out of alley. Garbage trucks on sidewalk. Short fence by side walk to improve view of on coming traffic at 6601 4th Ave S. 2 OH#4 Roundabouts; general * Roundabouts not particularly fond on. Worry as more traffic increases this could be Specific area harmful to individuals. * Not liking the crossing area proposed area from Lake Shore Drive-needs to empty from a sidewalk area from Lake Shore building and empty to a sidewalk area for Richfield Lake, etc. * AND a sidewalk and crossing needs to be addressed crossing to Richfield Lake by Post Office-a blind area and VERY fast moving traffic and hazardous in inclement season. 3 OH#4 Safety general My children have been hit by cars crossing 66th at Logan light-when they had the right- of-way . . . 3 times in 2 years! This has to stop. 4 OH #4 Lake Shore Specific area general The crosswalk on 66th Street between Pizza Luce and Lake Shore Drive Condominiums Drive Condos is better in its current location-rather this planned move to the East. Currently,we have safer sidewalks to get to the crosswalks and a safer access to this sidewalk to Richfield lake. 5 OH#4 Traffic; ROW general Better than the last plan. Still concerned about increasing car and truck volume. We impacts are on north side of 66th and feel our property value will be decreased with MUCH smaller yard. 6 OH#4 1918 W 66th Specific area; general * We live @ 1918 W 66th St(NE Corner of 66th and Morgan). We see that a retaining St Boulevard; wall will be built taking a part of our lawn and front steps. We would like to have some General input as to the type of retaining wall and new steps. * We are not in favor of a grass boulevard,since we have never been able to grow grass on our front bank due to the amount of salt used during the winter. * We like this plan and hope it gets approved. Happy about the fact that Richfield will not lose 18 houses like the first plan indicated. 1/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - y last updated 09/30/2014 COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion o SOURCE _ - 66th 7 OH#4 Lake Shore Specific area; general 1. The new crosswalks in front of the Lake Shore Dr. Condos is presently on the west Drive Condos side of the drive and west of the Pizza Luce driveway. I feel that it works better for our residents and has better sight lines if it remains on the west side of these driveways. 2. When the lights are installed at this crosswalk, please consider adding a means to trigger the lights from the median as many of the people crossing are elderly and slow moving and may not have time to complete crossing if they timer runs out. 8 OH#4 Guiding general It's unfortunate and disappointing that the city is giving up on its guiding principles of principles providing for all modes of transportation in its rebuilding of roadways. 9 OH #4 Attorney- No. Multimodal general The revised preliminary plan for West 66th Street appears a good compromise of South 66th providing room for traffic, pedestrians, and bikers. The mixed use trail concept is Residents employed presently in Chicago, IL with safety and functionality. This planning does a good job of preserving the existing neighborhood lots in tact. 10 OH#4 Bicycle general If the unfortunate happens and 66th between 35W and Penn is rebuilt as-is with the hope of future road diet,can the [roadway] be expanded to six feet to provide for a future bikeway? 11 OH#4 Bicycle general Richfield has only two ways for a biker to get across the city 75th/76th and 66th street and there is no parallel north of crosstown in Minneapolis. As a progressive community, we need bike facilities in Richfield. 2/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 #COMMENT CITY/ORG ,CATEGORY(IES) Portion of COMMENT U 66th 12 OH#4 Crosswalks; general 1. Please consider improving pedestrian crossings at existing roundabouts in Richfield Boulevard at Portland and 66th as adopting designs at Burnsville Ridges Hospital road north of the hospital. There the crosswalks are illuminated in the pavement and lights flash in the pavement when pedestrians trigger the switch. These steps give motorists better notice that a pedestrian intends to cross the roadway. 2. Opposed to center boulevard in 66th Street south of vets park near Chicago- Elliot- 10th Ave. 13 OH #4 1912 W 66th Specific Area general Please include me in discussions affecting 1912 W 66th St and our 2nd car parking spot St which is necessary for easy and peaceful living. 14 OH#4 Richfield Trans Roundabouts general A) Use roundabouts wherever possible Commission 1) Safety record Ex. 2)Speed control 3)Working during power outages 4)Allows traffic reversal for residents backing out B) Consider end of driveway tapering to ease backing out of resident driveways (see drawing) 15 OH#4 1820 W 66th ROW impacts; general I originally thought the low impact proposals would not cut into our yard-yet I have St Specific area just found out it will cut into our yard 12 feet. I am concerned with the amount of land we are loosing and more so concerned with the position of the bus stop. Now the bus stop is far enough from our front door, but if the path is 12 feet closer than a bus stop behind that I feel the stop will be very close to our house and I feel very uncomfortable with that. Overall, I understand you need to make improvements, but love my front yard and hate to lose it. 16 OH#4 General general The Mayor was very dismissive of our concerns. 3/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street li Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 # COMME OMMENT a SOURCE 911111', All1011111111L 111 OH #4 ROW impacts general As the homeowner at 1820 W 66th St, I am very concerned with the new plans of moving the sidewalk back and potentially taking up to 12 feet of my property, not only disrupting a couple of my trees but also curb appeal of it. I would like to see a project that doesn't disturb our property so much. I have strong concerns regarding loss of land and the push back of the transit stop closer to my house. 18 OH#4 Accessibility; general Island at Oliver will only cause left hand turn problems at other intersections. Island at 4/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 COMME'rf F.i x L � .pa)`, poky.- ::?-' 9 M�VI T . ��F,Ir� l .tl.: ..' ' .t S t N •30 4�'. ..- 4J4.�■'>5:'✓, n *tt.y ; W,�J& r Si S' �.R;..'p a., r�y. -.,�.``a 19 OH#4 Bicycle general I was unable to attend the 66th Street Open House on Thursday evening due to my work schedule. I'd like to share briefly via email. I'm a strong proponent of designing and constructing a designated bike lane along the entire stretch of 66th Street-Cedar Ave to Xerxes Ave. I am a lifelong resident of Richfield. I live at 7026 Morgan and commute on 66th Street daily. I drive my car everyday to work and on most of my daily errands. But I'm also a recreational "road" cyclist and my family enjoys biking throughout Richfield and Minneapolis. In the past week my family and I have biked on designated bike lanes on 76th St(off-street and on-street),73rd Street, Bloomington Ave, Nicollet Ave, and on the paths around Richfield Lake,several city parks,as well as sidewalks and residential streets. (The City of Mpls has great designated bike lanes on most of the main north- south avenues; including 17th and several east-west streets.) We like to get around and bike throughout our city. Did I mention we have a great little city? My family has enjoyed biking on the designated bike lanes and believe it is in the best interest and safety of bikers, pedestrians and vehicles that some type of a designated lane be provided for bikers to ride along 66th Street from Cedar to Xerxes. I realize that the area being most contested/discussed is west of 35W;with designated biking lanes already being approved east to Cedar Ave... 5/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 19 OH#4 Bicycle general ...As we move forward in years, I would anticipate more individuals will be using their bike for commuting to their workplace, short shopping trips to Aldi,the Hub or to the pool, and pure recreational use. I'm not proposing specifically for on-street or off-street bike lanes, but some type of designated lane. I know that we can ride on 65th or 67th Streets to get across town, but that doesn't provide the access that should be provided. And it isn't as convenient or safe to cross Penn Ave. I would be glad to provide additional comment or respond to questions. Thank you for your commitment to residents, businesses and visitors passing through Richfield. 20 OH#4 Richfield CSC Intersections East Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon -Yes, in combination with other elements. Raised Median &full access median look good. 21 OH#4 Richfield Bike Intersections; East Signal -Yes, roundabout better Advocates Bicycle I appreciate the fact that the cyclists will be able to have dedicated space on 66th St, which will be a safer solution for all parties, and is the most forward looking, more in line with the complete streets concept the city has adopted. 22 OH#4 Richfield Bike Bicycle East I am excited that we are recommending both the cycle tracks and sidewalks that are Advocates separated from traffic. As a mom, I am concerned about kinds and families being comfortable and more likely to bike. It would be nice if the cycle tracks had a better transition to the 3 rivers trail on the e 6/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY ES) Portio n ofji COMMENT -_ � SOURCE 66th u.- 23 OH#4 Intersections; East Raised Median-like with grass and trees. Accessibility Roundabout- nice but too hard for some people. Signal -some too short. Looks good. Hope curb drop and paths at corners will be crossable for chairs. Stop lights are reachable from Bolton (both?) sides not to high. Hope it will not take long, sidewalks are bad, curb drop by road are bad. Thanks for input! 24 OH#4 Drainage East Create better drainage on 66th St. between Stevens Ave &2nd Ave. (streets on both ends). 25 OH#4 General; East Very supportive of this concept. The roundabout configuration needs more work. Love Roundabout the on-street parking?????. 26 OH#4 Specific area; East Discussed with Liz Finnegan access to driveway. Need wider access as plan moves Intersections; forward. I need 22' and even space to west which may be in front of neighbor. Boulevard Presently there is an electric pole that limits current space. Raised Median- Do not like mid road raised median-to access driveway in winter(gain momentum to get up hill I need 3 lanes. Signal -I prefer signals-the roundabouts are small and can be confusing. My concerns about the Boulevards is I really don't think they will help snow management. I am on 66th and I feel it(new plan)will still position a fair amount of snow in yard and also make more footage to manage. there will also be more snow to carve away for driveway visibility. Being in and on 66th St,the wet slush in spring and after rain in summer sprays/spatters quite a distance. Salt will limit what will grow,so be careful what is planted. Crystal planted some trees on 81 and many are looking poor. I feel the current sidewalk made wider would meet many of Richfield's needs with bike lane on sidewalk adjacent to the road. 7/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion o COMMENT SOURCE 66th 27 OH#4 Traffic; Design East Isn't 66th east/west east of Portland a reliever for airport traffic-1 lane isn't enough for future traffic. Please align utility covers so they aren't in the track of vehicles-don't make a road with permanent potholes like Diagonal Blvd. Don't use parking-bus turn-ins. I voiced concern about this at meeting with Met Council during Diagonal Blvd/73 St sewer project. The curbing at parking turn in and intersections is already busted up from snow plowing. 28 OH#4 Traffic; East Speed/Conflict Points- Diagrams for roundabouts do not show pedestrian/motorist Intersections conflicts. Still have doubts if 2 lane 2/center turn lane will be able to handle all traffic flow from Nicollet east to 16th avenue section of 66th St. Intersection Concepts-For when, motorists, bicyclist, pedestrian Raised Median- not a fan of Roundabout-only if pedestrian crossings are more evident. 29 OH#4 Intersections East Roundabout-depends on design Striping and flashing signage (ped crossing statute)are helpful in any intersection design. 30 OH #4 Crosswalks East It would be nice to have a ped crosswalk crossing 66th St on Lynwood Blvd. with flashing lights. 31 OH#4 Bicycle West Please make a commuter bike lane or 3 lane. Cars are going too fast on 66th. 32 OH#4 6601 Oliver ROW Impacts West My home at 6601 Oliver Ave S is one of the homes up for potential acquisition. My only Ave S concern is the project devaluing my property significantly over the next 3-4 years while construction is being completed. I would rather discuss my property being acquired rather than dealing with the hassle of a home that is slowly being devalued due to this project. Anything but acquisition is not really a comfortable option for me which is why I am willing to work with the city and county on selling my property. Thank you. 8/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 #COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion o ;'.COMMENT :- SOURCE 66th 33 OH#4 ROW Impacts West PLEASE, do not remove any homes. Keep 2 lanes in each direction and hopefully, crosstown can change/expand for better traffic flow because they have room. 34 OH#4 General West This is my fourth meeting,the low impact isn't so mind boggling as the previous concepts,and I can at least think of this one for thoughts to consider. 35 OH#4 ROW Impacts West No house taken 36 OH#4 ROW Impacts; West I like the concept of minimizing property impacts, but I would like to see a 3-lane at Safety project open. - Easier to cross -Safer(slower vehicles, removes turning moves from through) -Aesthetics(more room for green space). - Designing to a forecast traffic volume for 20+years into the future doesn't seem reasonable, on some congestion in peak periods is ok-this is an urban area. Safe pedestrian crossing are needed! 37 OH#4 Economic West We need the tax base!!! Lets get the semi traffic off of 66th! Development 38 OH#4 Safety;Traffic West #1-Safety is#1-children #2- I'd like to get out of my driveway in less than 10 minutes #3-Salt is killing our lawns 39 OH#4 Bicycle West The concept is acceptable when it takes into account that people would lose their homes in order to get better facilities for bikes and pedestrians. I have heard from many people who commute or use a bike as transportation and are extremely frustrated that getting across town is not easy. There are so many businesses along the route that could benefit from better access for both pedestrians and cyclists. It is too bad that we have to compromise this access and continue to favor motor vehicles. 9/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 COMMENT ,CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) •Portion of COMMEN SOURCE-: _ ,. Abs,sth 40 OH#4 6601 Newton Safety West Does not improve safety. Does not provide safety for commuter bikers east bound. Ave Putting a new road down will not improve vibration to homes abutting the street. 66th Street DID NOT cause house vibrations prior to its widening(putting in sidewalks and extra lanes) in the 70's. Low impact DOES NOT meet the project goals. Concept 4B would be best. 41 OH#4 Richfield Bike Bicycle West Need Separate bike facilities. Advocates The low impact compact achieves only that there are NO total acquisitions,which is positive, but there is no forward looking provision for bicyclists to have a dedicated space to ride. There may not be enough room for such provision between 35W and Penn, but with minimal impacts,cycle tracks or the equivalent could be accommodated to achieve better balance. One can only hope that a 3-lane conversion of 66th Street would be possible in the future. 42 OH#4 Safety West Need safer walking areas-this would provide that. 43 OH#4 Boulevard West Is it the best plan for the next 50 years? I do not want to be responsible for the moving, watering, raking, of an extra 800+square feet of turf(the boulevard). 44 OH#4 Boulevard West It is definitely better! I still have questions about maintenance and practicality of the 6' boulevard. 45 OH#4 ROW Impacts West I am concerned that this project will lead to a fall in property values. 46 OH#4 General West Xerxes-Penn and Penn-35W are apples and oranges. Why are they grouped together for this? Return to design 4b west of Penn. 30 mph speed limit and ???? Penn-35W 47 OH#4 General West Thank you for considering our neighborhoods. 48 OH#4 General West Good compromise. 49 OH#4 ROW Impacts West I like the fact that few acquisitions of homes and land would take place. I also like that the roadway and traffic noise would not be any closer to my home than it is now. 10/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 50 OH#4 ROW Impacts West I like the idea of this low impact plan. We are concerned with how much land we could lose and this solution gives us the best peace of mind. 51 OH#4 Traffic West The low impact does not address the major problem of 66th, no left turn lanes. The MAYOR is pushing what she wants not what is the best improvement to 66th. Traffic will increase on 66th more and more as multi housing goes in by Southdale 52 OH#4 ROW Impacts West I,of course, still DO NOT want any portion of the front yard impacted by the project and am still not clear on the mount represented by the low impact design as somewhat encouraging compared to original plan; however vague. Not clear on the specifics (exact amount of property impacted) of the "low impact design." 53 OH#4 1912 W 66th Parking; Specific West I am a home owner @ 1912 W66th St. My MAJOR concern is our second parking space St area parallel to 66th Street is affected in your plans. We have a single driveway and use that space daily and can't be w/o another solution if that space is taken away. I would like to be notified with alternative options and be kept current regarding any changes that will affect my property. 612-597-8451 54 OH#4 1912 W 66th Parking; Specific West I live between Logan and Morgan on 66th. Our 2nd car parking spot is parallel to and St area adjacent to 66th. This spot is necessary for a 2-car family. We are open to discussing options for replacing this spot, but we would have unreasonable hardship without a spot for our 2nd car. Also-someone needs to reach out directly to Dave Pylka,our neighbor and a possible home loser about this project. He is in the dark and feels that site loss of his home would adversely affect him. 55 OH#4 Pedestrian West I would prefer a more aggressive pedestrian friendly concept; make the hard decisions ('j`property impacts)today to last longer into the future so we don't need to come back and do it "right"in the future. I prefer concept 4B. 11/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion of COMMENT 111111111111111111111111k. 66th :. .. 56 OH #4 Turn lane; West 1. Need to address a turn lane Median; 2. Green median Crossing 3. Better access for crossing 57 OH #4 6600 4th Maintenance West Look into maintenance of small trees(suckers?) possible on private property. 58 OH #4 ROW Impacts West The current project is terrible and screws over the home owners by only taking their front lawn and leaving them a devalued property that will only begin to run down over time since the property(house) is now closer to the traffic.The county is saving money but shafting the residents. Make the county buy out the 18 homes! 59 OH#4 66th & Hogan Traffic West 66th Street has lost a lot of its length. It cannot lose too much of its width because there is no space left. Forget about bike lanes and roundabouts. Leave that to the towns that have open space to plan around. As it is, people use it to get to 35W! 60 OH#4 Homeowner ROW Impacts West From what I understand of these new designs and was told by city staff and council,this on 66th Low Impact Concept will not take more than a few inches from the south side of 66th St between Xerxes and I-35W. So, I and many of my neighbors who have been attending all the Council and Transportation Commission meetings are pleased. It's still a bit unclear how to read the maps precisely. *Please post them on-line with a before and after map WITH measurements so we can compare and see what this will end up looking like. Very please with direction this impact has gone. Thank you. 12/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 COMMENT CITY/ORG. CATEGORY(IES) Portion of COMMENT 50URkCEi i l h< 61 Richfield ROW Impacts West is a goal of the proejct to do "a" project or to do it"right"? In my experience with Connect Association Manangement I have seen time and time again where a decision was made to"reduce the impact"on something or someone which meant missing the mark on the goals and desired end product.This is an opportunity to do it"right". Fix the issues, make improvements to our City and neighborhood. I do not see how the low impact design is any different than what we have now.A lot of funding and time going into this project. Do it right the first time. Do what pleases the masses and unfortunately that may mean acquistion of homes.Times have changed from when these homes were bulit in the 40's and 50's and our roads/transit systems have since then. Lets make descisions that are best for 2015 and beyond. I feel bad for those who may lose a home, but IMO we need to spend the money that was given by MANY to make this a win. 62 Richfield ROW Impacts West The low impact plan just defer the problems to a later date and don't really solve Connect anything.Speed will still be a problem, and the running of red lights on Logan will still be a problem (why do we need a thirty five million dollar project to "maybe enforce the lights" at a later point?That sould be done by RPD right now as it exists). IF we are spending money to do it, let us do this right with bike lanes,turn lanes and proper landscaping. I live on 66th by Logan and would be more than willing to give up some of my proeprty for a better corridor that will benefit the whole community.We should try to contain the Crosstown traffic to the Crosstown. Since I'm realistic in what will probably need to be done,something betwen (see comment below)and the low impact proposal is where this should be headed. 13/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 i #i COMMENT I CITY/ORG 1 CATEGORY(IES)'Portion of COMMENT jj Q �± �....�..�.1r'��ti� ...-a.:' �rrzY,tiwva 1f6 .a'�.s.��c + 'i� _u.r/ er 6,..�,Gfh•..:t . ,._.:� _, c.3.o,.��.,...x,..",•�.. ��,.a_.�_ i. :; 1 ' _ _... ....-_.0 63 Richfield ROW Impacts West Here's an idea,tell the rush hour crosstown traffic to go to the....Crosstown. Do a Connect standard 4-3 road diet(one lane in each direction, plus left turn lanes), plus bike lanes and better sidewalks.Then add planted medians and boulevards.Add value to the adjacent property, rather then defiling these properties for another generation or two with suburban-style car sewer. Richfield can do better.Stand up to the city-destroying traffic engineers in Medina.Are you really progressive,or just all talk? 64 Facebook ROW Impacts West There really seems to be a conflict between truly updating and improving the road for everyone(cars, bikes, pedestrians)and the potential removal of 18 homes. I don't see the low impact design having significant improvement over what we have now. If people really want a safer road,the tough choice of removing homes will have to be made. I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions. 65 Facebook East 66th Street is only 1 of 2 roads that travel all the way across Richfield from East to West, meaning it's a VERY busy road.There needs to be 2 lanes of travel in each direction with left turn lanes at certain busier intersections. I don't think on lane in each direction plus a left turn lane will cut it.Too many vehicles travel this road for work. 14/15 County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street Summary of Public Comments - last updated 09/30/2014 # COMMENT CITY/ORG CATEGORY(IES) Portion o COMMENT SOURCE 66th jimimoommiialna_ „ 66 Facebook East Got this now on Penn, it's horrible....The markings are not completed yet so stupid drivers think there are two lanes each way and this is just some major accident waiting to happen.Traffic is getting jammed up horribly.Terrible,terrible, idea...All we in the neighborhood can figure is it will make people take other routes. Also,we need some signage so those fools understand how it's meant to be used. And it doens't help that it starts at 75th St. so when you are heading into Richfield from Bloomington, it goes from 2 lanes each way on 76th to BOOM one lane on 75th. 15/15 6rxeada SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS RVEEI w[:r81mEETEAR6 OPEN HOUSE #4 SUMMARY Meeting Purpose Quick Summary The goal of the open house was to reinforce Nletfng Date l September 25, 2014 Richfield what was heard at the previous open I.Location Community Center houses,share project developments, and solicit input on design alternatives. People Signed In 90 Surveys Completed—East 20 Materials Available Surveys Completed—West 35 General: s.I ent Form&Completed;;,i 18 • Context Boards explaining schedule and budget,guiding principles,what we've learned,what we've done, and conflict points • Process Boards showing project problem statement and project goals • Comment Cards to provide general feedback on the project East(I-35W to 16th Avenue): • Design Concept Boards showing recommended concept(4B) and concepts not advanced (1, 3, and 4A) • Intersection Concept Boards showing closed raise median and full access median • Corridor Plot of East segment with an opportunity to provide post-it comments • Survey to collect feedback on direction and preference of East design alternatives West(Xerxes to I-35W): • Design Concept Boards showing Low Impact Concept and Concepts 2 and 4B • What We've Done Board showing what additional analysis has been completed for the West • Corridor Plot of West segment with an opportunity to provide post-it comments • Survey to collect feedback on direction and preference of West design alternatives Survey Results General: Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the project process and proposed design concepts: • All but two respondents thought that common themes from previous open houses were accurately captured or were unsure because they weren't at the previous open houses • 73%agreed the written problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community • 86%or respondents agreed that reducing speed and conflict points would improve safety East(I-35W to 16th Avenue): Attendees were asked if they believed the recommended concept sufficiently addresses the community's problem statement. Of question respondents,85 percent agreed—only two indicated that they did not believe the recommended concept satisfied the community's vision.Attendees were also asked whether they thought intersection concepts would improve safety along 66th Street. Results are shown below. Intersection Concepts—Respondents'Perceptions of Whether Tools Would Improve Safety Intersection Concept Yes No Maybe Raised Median 9 2 0 Full Access Median 5 4 0 Roundabout 5 3 2 Signal 7 2 0 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 3 4 0 Page 1of3 1,..6 t da SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS tette%'Theis x nmv-U STREflaoas West(Xerxes to I-35W): Attendees were asked if they believed the Low Impact Concept achieved the best balance for the project west of I-35W. Of question respondents, 55 percent agreed. Results are shown below. Low Impact Concept—Respondents'Perceptions of Whether Low Impact Concept Achieves Best Balance for 66th Street West of I-35W Response Count Yes,the Low Impact Concept achieves the best balance 16 No,the Low Impact Concept does not achieve the best balance 8 Not sure 5 Public Comments—Common Themes The summary below includes feedback from comment sheets and surveys.Specific comments are available in the detailed comment log. The number of comments received on a common theme is provided in parentheses. General: • Concerns were expressed about property impacts associated with yard loss(3) • Comments showed support for bicycle lanes (3) • Residents expressed opposition to boulevards (2) • Residents were both in favor of(1) and against(1) roundabouts • Many respondents provided comments about specific areas to be addressed in detailed design East(I-35W to 16th Avenue): • Support was expressed for bicycle infrastructure (2) • Concerns were expressed regarding traffic volumes and design capacity(2) • Specific recommendations were made regarding design, drainage, and accessibility improvements West(Xerxes to I-35W): • Concerns were expressed that the Low Impact Concept would result in yard loss and a potential decline in property value (7) • Concerns were expressed that the Low Impact Concept does not adequately address safety and/or that crossing improvements are needed (5) • Concerns were expressed regarding traffic on this segment of 66th Street and a desire that the concept provide for a turn lane(4) • Support was expressed for the Low Impact Concept due to the fact that it resulted in fewer acquisitions than other proposed concepts (3) • Desire was expressed for bicycle improvements to be included for this segment(3) • Concerns were expressed regarding loss of parking under the Low Impact Concept(2) • Support was expressed for Concept 4B(2) • Maintenance concerns were expressed in respect to boulevards (2) Page 2 of 3 beaehkeede.. SWEET County Road Reconstruction Project - 66th Street STREETS &aft/mad RICHFIELD54 Fb ISIEET&OA6 Public Comments—Post-It Note Summary The Summary below includes feedback from corridor plots. West(Xerxes to I-35W): Xerxes Ave S to Penn Ave S: • "Look at adding a cross walk at 66th &Thomas Ave S-so many people cross there. Bus stop on SW& NE Corner. People crossing from Jefferson Park on south to Sheridan Park on north." • "Bus stops exist @ NE&SW corners Thomas!" Penn Ave S to I-35W: • Logan Ave S—"Roundabout not traffic signal" • "The plan is short sighted. It is car dependent when the young generation is transit and bike focused Please go with concept 4B&2" East(I-35W to 16th Avenue): • Emerson Ave-"Bike lane should at least go to Girard" (2nd Agreed) • 135W roundabout concept-"Love it!" • Lake Shore Dr.S. -"Roundabout a good thing here." • Near Pizza Luce-"Why not keep the x-walk on the west side of intersection?" • Lyndale Ave S roundabout concept-"Wide enough Islands for power wheel chair" • Lyndale Ave S-"Make sure there's enough room for wheel chairs in the median" • Lyndale Ave S-"No roundabout here" • Lyndale Ave S-"Happy about the use of roundabout!! Great job!" • Pleasant Ave S-"Better accommodations for bikes&people at Railroad crossing" • Nicollet Ave S-"Bus pullouts at Nicollet in today's location" (2nd Agreed) • Nicollet Ave S—"Better bus shelters!" • 2nd Ave S&66th—"Lots of large trees impacted with "grading" areas-worried about damage to tree roots" • NW Corner 2nd Ave S&66th—"Street drain is a bad design-snow plow creates an issue" • Between 4th Ave&5th Ave—"Make sure alleys are wide enough (Garbage trucks are 4'wider than some entrances)" • Portland Ave S—SW corner-"Concerns regarding vacant gas station property(tough to access the site)" • Portland Ave S—"Please consider city of Burnsville illuminated pedestrian inroad bed crossings by Burnsville Ridges Hospital for Richfield's pedestrian roundabout crossings to give more notice and protection" • Columbus Ave S—"Concerns regarding traffic with only 1-lane traffic in each direction east of Portland" • 13th Ave S—"Consider staging utility work so one access @1309&other commercial sites can be open at all times" • 13th Ave S—"1305 Purchase for Parking lot to 1301-1309-1325 E66th" • 16th Ave S—"Open 65th St to Parkway" • 16th Ave S—"Bikeway should connect to intercity trail" Page 3 of 3 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 14. STAFF REPORT NO. 192 gieeft#,dx. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: John Stark, Community Development Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: No review by another department is necessary. CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Richfield to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At a joint Work Session on September 15, 2014 the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) heard a presentation from University of Minnesota law professor Myron Orfield regarding his concerns about discrimination resulting from the practices and policies of the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Upon hearing the presentation, and based on their knowledge of the impacts of these practices and policies on Richfield in the past, members of the City Council and HRA were in general agreement with Mr. Orfield's concerns. One of the policies in question, the Housing Policy Plan (HPP), has been adopted by the Metropolitan Council in draft form and is due for final consideration in December. The City and HRA submitted our comments and concerns about the draft HPP on September 24 (attached). Included in that submittal was a request that the Met Council respond to these comments by October 20. The Met Council did not specifically respond to our comments. Their staff did provide a very brief summary(attached) of all of the comments which they had received during the comment period. At the September 15 Work Session, the City Council and HRA learned that the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, along with several housing advocacy groups, were contemplating making a formal Complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the practices and policies that contribute to the concentrations of affordable housing and the racial inequities that may result from those concentrations. At the Work Session, the Council and HRA indicated that they would like to consider similar action to that taken by those communities. Staff recommended, however, delaying that consideration until after Richfield had hade its comments to the Met Council on the HPP and provided the Met Council with an opportunity to respond to those comments. Because Richfield has now made those comments and the Met Council neglected the opportunity to respond to those comments, this issue is now being brought back to the City Council for formal consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: As this is a policy issue rather than a technical issue, City staff is not making a specific recommendation. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: At the September 15 Work Session,Mr.Orfield presented demographic and economic data which shows the increasing concentrations of poverty in the City of Richfield and the Richfield School District. There is concern that the policies and practices of the Met Council and the MHFA,at best,do not adequately disperse affordable housing throughout the Twin Cities and,at worst, promote the concentration of affordable housing(resulting in concentrations of poverty and concentrations of minority populations). B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The policies and practices of the Met Council and MHFA are implemented through both regulations and incentives. Regulations include the requirement to submit a comprehensive plan that is consistent with the Met Council's"Systems Statements"which would reflect the HPP. Incentives include the allocation of grants and other discretionary funding to those projects meeting their policy guidance. In both cases, Richfield's local policies and practices are heavily impacted by the policies and practices of the Met Council and MHFA. • The Fair Housing Complaint process has been deemed as the most effective way to challenge these policies and practices by attorneys Michael Allen and Myron Orfield. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The attorneys involved in this matter feel that there is a strategic advantage to initiating legal action prior to the Metropolitan Council's consideration of the Final Housing Policy Plan(currently scheduled for December 17,2014). D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The attorneys who have been engaged to take this legal action(Michael Allen and Myron Orfield)have agreed to do so without charge. In the event there is a financial settlement or an awarding of attorney's expenses,the lawyers and their firms would be compensated in that manner. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney prepared the attached Resolution after reviewing similar Resolutions adopted by the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. • In order to take part in conversations with other potential"complaintants"in a manner that protects attorney-client privilege,the City Manager signed a very basic agreement with the law firm of Reiman, Dane and Colfax on September 26,2014. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Continue the Consideration of the Attached Resolution in order to pursue additional dialog with the Metropolitan Council or it's staff. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: At tis time, no additional parties are expected at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution_HUD Fair Housing Complaint Resolution Letter d HPP Comment Letter Backup Material n HPP Comment Summary Backup Material DRAFT CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO FILE A HUD FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT WHEREAS the Twin Cities region suffers from severe and persistent racial concentrations of poverty; and WHEREAS affordable housing in the Twin Cities region is disproportionately located within Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and the inner-ring suburbs, where there are already large concentrations of low-income and nonwhite families; and WHEREAS this imbalance harms low-income and nonwhite families by restricting their access to the employment prospects, quality education, and other opportunities that define economically diverse,racially integrated communities; and WHEREAS this imbalance also harms the cities and suburbs that contain concentrations of poverty, by reducing their tax base and potentially inducing middle- class flight; and WHEREAS the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Metropolitan Council have helped create and administer a system that intensifies and perpetuates concentrations of poverty by disproportionately allocating Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to areas already containing most of the region's affordable housing; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council explicitly prioritizes other sources of affordable housing funding for municipalities that have already constructed many affordable units; and WHEREAS, contrary to the requirements of federal law, the Metropolitan Council has failed to review, examine, or even discuss these problems in its recent Analysis of Impediments; and WHEREAS the federal Fair Housing Act proscribes activities that perpetuate racial segregation in housing, and imposes upon governmental entities receiving federal funding a responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing; and WHEREAS providing fair housing choice is an essential and indispensable component of any strategy to combat the region's persistent racial concentrations of poverty and attendant social problems. 451841v1 MDTRC160-5 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield is authorized to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint concerning the activities of the State of Minnesota and its agents; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield appoints and retains Myron Orfield and Michael Allen as counsel for the purpose of filing this complaint. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 451841v1 MDTRC160-5 2 Housing Policy Plan comments submitted by The City of Richfield • The Housing Policy Plan (HPP) has not been adequately circulated, discussed and vetted. We believe that Met Council staff should be obliged to present the draft plan to individual local policy makers (i.e. City Councils, County Boards, etc.), not solely through very brief regional workshops that were advertised as being primarily for the discussion of the Transportation Policy Plan (with the HPP appearing as an afterthought). • The HPP should not be formally adopted by the Metropolitan Council until the Housing Need Methodology has been devised and approved. This Methodology will be key in determining the practical effects of the HPP. • We strongly encourage the HPP to be amended to add the word "quality" preceding any use of the term "affordable housing" as a need and/or goal. • We believe that any stated housing needs and goals should factor in naturally- occurring affordable housing and account for the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing units (especially affordable units). Such rehabilitation should count toward meeting the goals. There is an abundance of affordable housing in Richfield. What is lacking, however, is quality affordable housing. Additionally, we believe the Met Council needs to provide tools and resources to rehabilitate existing housing stock. • It would be impossible for fully developed cities to meet any of the housing needs or goals without substantial redevelopment activities. Since 2006, however, public agencies have lost the most effective tool for redevelopment (that being the use of eminent domain for projects demonstrating public benefit). It is incongruous for the Met Council to expect fully developed cities to undertake redevelopment activities without providing cities with (or at least strongly advocating for) the tools with which to do so. • The most recent affordable housing document that Richfield received from the Metropolitan Council estimates that 29% of our existing housing units are affordable. We believe that this amount should be deemed sufficient for meeting our goals for affordable housing. Policies or practices which require additional affordable housing in Richfield would result in an imbalanced mix of housing that puts Richfield in jeopardy of surpassing the "tipping point," at which concentrations of poverty surpass our ability to provide adequate public services to such households. • The annual Housing Performance Score does not provide adequate points for the preexistence of affordable housing nor does it award adequate points for the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing units. As stated, Richfield already has an abundance of affordable housing but is lacking in quality affordable housing. • The continued policy of promoting the construction of new affordable housing in closer proximity to jobs and transit would seem to continue the concentration of affordable housing (and non-white and/or low-income populations) that has occurred in the Metropolitan Region; we are concerned about the impacts to both Richfield and to the region of the resulting concentration of non-white households and households of low/moderate income and view such results to be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Fair Housing Act and the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. • The continued policy of promoting the construction of new affordable housing in closer proximity to transit is more reasonable in the case of light-rail, bus rapid transit and arterial bus rapid transit because these amenities bring substantial investment with them. We do not believe the policy of locating additional concentrations of affordable housing near local bus service is fair without corresponding investment in the infrastructure and amenities of that local bus service. • The HPP removes policies dedicated to reducing concentrations of poverty and segregation which were present in the previous Metropolitan Council Housing Plan; specifically Policies 23 and 35 contained in that Plan. „,,, 204„ HOUSING Thrive MSP POLICY PLAN Key Themes from Public Comments&Council Outreach During its formal public comment period the Council received a total of 78 written or electronic submissions, comprising a wide range of perspectives and hundreds of individual comments.Of these: • 32 came from local governments, including mayors,city managers,and staff • 6 came from counties • 20 came from non-governmental organizations, including advocates and membership groups • 18 came from local residents • 4 came from state agencies Between April and October of 2014, Metropolitan Council staff also attended over 30 various meetings, workshops,and events spanning all seven counties to present the HPP and provide an opportunity for feedback and questions. While these were not"official” public comments,staff noted key themes for suggested changes to the Plan.The Council expresses gratitude to Housing Policy Plan Working Group members that hosted,attended,or helped promote these conversations. While staff is still extracting and compiling the full list of comments,the themes below were highlighted,as these were noted by multiple submitters and at times with opposing views.Staff has also included the full list of commenters as well as those who provided testimony at the public hearing.A full set of comments is available upon request. Please note that the numbering below is for organization and does not reflect priority. Allocation of Affordable Housing Need/Housing Performance Scores 1. Lack of final Need and Scores methodologies made commenting difficult.This comment came primarily from cities,counties,and organizations who then requested to be part of the process of finalizing these. 2. Support for three-band area median income(AMI)structure for calculating/expressing the Need. This change, moving from a single AMI threshold of 60%to three(Need for households at or below 30%of AMI,from 30 to 50%of AMI,and 50%to 80%of AMI)was nearly universally supported,with several responses noting the utility of this breakdown in planning and targeting affordable activities. 3. Support for changes to Housing Performance Score(HPS). Similar to the Need, numerous commenters lamented that revisions were not complete in time for public comment.There was solid support to collaboratively develop a more expansive set of eligible activities. 4. Geographic dispersion of affordable housing and transit. Response to this issue was varied.Comments were received advocating for linkage of housing and transit,while some expressed caution about over- concentration of affordable housing. Others requested that the Council consider a wider range of eligible transportation improvements(e.g. park and rides)when awarding funds,or for funding consideration of other key community amenities(e.g.good schools,job growth)where transit is not existing or planned. Affordable Housing 5. Lack of resources for affordable housing development. This unfortunate reality was referenced in many comments as concerns federal,state and local resources,and related ability to deliver affordable projects,to provide a deep enough subsidy to serve very low income households,or to close financing Last revised October 8,2014 1 gaps,to name a few. Many commenters called on the Council and other stakeholders to contemplate, determine,dedicate,or otherwise identify new financial resources. 6. Sewer Availability Charge(SAC). While the draft Plan only mentions exploring potential for a SAC credit for affordable housing,this generated a range of responses including not using SAC for any special purposes to increasing the credit's availability to all affordable development to increasing its geographic scope to broadening it to serve small businesses and not just affordable housing. 7. Support for funding of Inclusionary Housing Account. While several commenters cautioned the Council against mandates for inclusionary zoning,support for this account—which would reward cost-saving, high performance projects in cities using local controls to lower development costs—was consistent. 8. How to expand production of affordable housing in suburbs with few opportunities. Whether citing insufficient market demand, lack of transit,unavailability of land,or other factors, several commenters— both at the region's edge and in fully-developed suburbs—described the particular challenge of attracting development interest, aside from any local objections. Further, some suggested that with scarce resources affordable housing priority should go to areas with transit investments only,while others felt not having transit amenities would hamper the ability to attract housing development funds. Housing Market 9. Challenges of redevelopment(e.g. lack of eminent domain, resources, land).Several commenters described legal,financial,and geographic challenges of identifying quality parcels,guiding land for development or redevelopment, locating motivated sellers,and packaging financing. 10. Naturally occurring affordable housing. Comments on this topic ranged from appropriate nomenclature to strategic priority,with several noting the critical role this housing does and can play in the region,with others pointing out logistical and financial challenges in addressing it. Equity. 11. Lack of attention to specific populations(seniors, persons with disabilities). Insufficient attention to addressing these populations' needs was cited by some,while others discussed these as collective public issues that will require innovation, partnership,collaboration,and new fiscal tools. 12. Concentrations of poverty—how to frame,how to address. Concentrations of poverty and concentrations of members of protected classes were often mentioned, both as exist today and as might be created(or alternately, be prevented)through the Plan's policies and other public and private actions. 13. Fair Housing. Comments here focused on state and local roles and responsibilities,with some suggesting legal and regulatory responsibilities for the Council and others requesting Council leadership in research and in developing strategies for improved regional performance. Local roles 14. Local roles: mandates or suggestions? A number of commenters asked for clarification whether"Local Roles"are encouraged/suggested or mandated/required. 15. Housing element of comp plan/housing is not a system/council has no authority.While all commenters cited a Council role in housing,some argued against expansion of this role,creating linkage with statutory systems,or concern that the Plan aims to establish housing as a system. 16. "Consequences"to cities not meeting need, not following comp plan. Several commenters asked for clarification of what consequences, if any, cities would face if unable to meet housing goals. Last revised October 8,2014 2 Written comments received CITY COMMENTS City of Anoka Darin Berger City of Apple Valley Bruce Nordquist City of Belle Plaine Chelsea Alger City of Brooklyn Center Curt Boganey City of Brooklyn Park(CD Director) Kim Berggren City of Brooklyn Park(Mayor&City Manager) Mayor Jeffrey Lunde and James Verbrugge City of Burnsville Heather Johnston City of Crystal Anne Norris City of Dayton Bob Derus City of Eagan David Osberg City of Elko New Market Thomas Terry City of Fridley Paul Bolin City of Hampton Laura Chamberlain City of Minneapolis D.Craig Taylor City of Newport Deb Hill City of North Oaks Michael Robertson City of Orono Michael Gaffron City of Plymouth Kelli Slavik City of Prior Lake Frank Boyles City of Ramsey Tim Glad hill City of Richfield Steve Devich, Mayor Debbie Goettel,Suzanne Sandahl City of Robbinsdale Rick Pearson&Marcia Glick City of Rogers Steve Stahmer City of Rosemount Mayor William Droste and City Council City of Roseville Paul Bilotta City of Shakopee Mayor Brad Tabke City of Shoreview Kathleen Castle City of St. Louis Park Michele Schnitker City of St. Mary's Point Laura Chamberlain City of Victoria Laura Chamberlain City of Woodbury Mayor Mary Giuliani Stephens City of Woodbury(staff) Karl Batalden COUNTY COMMENTS Carver County Gayle Degler Carver County CDA Cindy Monroe Carver County Supplemental Nate Kabat Dakota County Thomas Egan Las reviiseductooer 8 2014 Kevin Dockry 3 Washington County HRA Barbara Dacy ELECTED OFFICIALS State Representative Diane Loeffler ORGANIZATIONS ARC of the Greater Twin Cities Steve Piekarski,Gene Martinez Asamblea de Derechos Civiles Antonia Alvarez Asian Pacific Housing Consortium Jean Lee Builders'Association of the Twin Cities Shawn Nelson Catholic Charities Jessie Sorenson Equity in Place Owen Duckworth Homes Within Reach CLT Jeff Washburne,Tim Thompson,Janet Lindbo Housing Preservation Project Tim Thompson Institute for Metropolitan Opportunity Myron Orfield Jewish Community Action Vic Rosenthal Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Tina Homstad Metro Cities Patricia Nauman Metropolitan Consortium of Community Jim Roth Developers(MCCD) MICAH Sue Watlov Phillips Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Jay Wilkinson NAACP of St. Paul Jeffrey Martin RESIDENTS Ray Becker Tim Brausen Nancy Eder Steve Ficker Kirt Garrison Tasoulla Hadjiyanni Kay Hong Butch Johnson Cameron Kruse Teresa Lambert Barry LeBlanc Don Matzen Donna Neste Jim Quiring Priscila Barron Sanchez Dale Swanson Jim Swanson Unidentified Commenter at Model Cities event Unidentified Commenter at Model Cities event Last revised October 8,2014 4 STATE AGENCIES/ENTITIES Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans Sai Her Minnesota Department of Health Kristin Raab Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Margaret Kaplan Minnesota State Council on Disability(MSCOD) Joan Willshire Individuals testifying during the public hearings on the Housing Policy Plan Lamorris Britton—One Family One Community Owen Duckworth—Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Jim Hilbert—NAACP Katherine Kersten—Center of the American Experiment Maleta Kimmons—One Family One Community Tim Lipton—NAACP Jeffrey Martin—NAACP Yusef Mgeni—St Paul resident Ann Mongoven—ISAIAH William Moore—NAACP Patricia Nauman—Metro Cities Lars Negstad—ISAIAH Cheryl Peterson—Guardian Church Sue Watlov Phillips—MICAH Jerry Ransom—St Paul resident Judy Rhein-ISAIAH Nelima Sitati-Munene—Org App Project/NWCC Will Stancil—Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity Joy Marsh Stephens—ISAIAH Tim Thompson—Housing Preservation Project DeAndre Weaver—One Family One Community James Wilkinson—St Paul resident Last revised October 8,2014 5 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 15. aw■Al STAFF REPORT NO. 193 Agehlielot CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Steven L. Devich, City Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SD OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the City Council to confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since former Public Safety Director Todd Sandell retired effective May 31, 2014, Deputy Public Safety Director Jay Henthorne has been serving as Acting Public Safety Director. During that time, Mr. Henthorne has done an excellent job of performing the duties of Public Safety Director. Moreover, Mr. Henthornes relevant progressive work experience, extensive education and training make him very well qualified to assume the position. In October, the City Manager informed the City Council that the position of Public Safety Director would be posted as an internal recruitment. Mr. Henthorne was the only applicant for the position. As a result of this recruitment, and based on Mr. Henthorne's excellent performance in his role as Acting Public Safety Director, he has been selected by the City Manager for appointment to the position of Public Safety Director. Acting Police Chief Jay Henthorne has been serving with the Richfield Police Department since 1990. He has held positions in the Police Department as a Patrol Officer: 1990-1993, School Liaison Officer/Juvenile Detective: 1993-1998, Police Sergeant: 1998-2000, Police Lieutenant: 2000-2012, Deputy Chief: 2012-2014, and is the City's Emergency Management Coordinator: 2004 to the present. Mr. Henthorne holds a Bachelor's Degree in Police Science and a Master's Degree in Public Safety Administration from St. Mary's University of Minnesota. He is a 2001 graduate of the Northwestern School of Police Staff and Command in Evanston, Illinois and the FBI National Academy, Session#245, in Quantico, Virginia. He is a member of several Local, State, and National Police Organizations and Emergency Management Organizations. They are listed as follows: • Member: Minnesota Peace and Police Officers Association • Member: International Chiefs of Police Association • Member: Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers • Member: Metropolitan Emergency Managers Association • Associate Member: Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association • Member: Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association • Member: FBI National Academy Associates Associations RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Historical Context contained in Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): According to Richfield City Charter Section 6.02 Powers and Duties of the City Manager,subsection 3,and under Richfield City Code Section 310.01 Subd.3,Charter authority,appointment or removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the Council. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Public Safety Department has been without a permanent Public Safety Director since the retirement of Todd Sandell. Mr. Henthorne has been serving as Acting Public Safety Director since that time. It is the City Managers intention to get this appointment confirmatin request to the City Council before the end of the month of October to conclude the process. Unfortunately, Mr. Henthorne will attending the out-of-state International Chiefs of Police Conference on October 28th and will not be in attendance at the City Council Meeting. He will be in attendance at the November 10th meeting to be introduced to the public. D. ,FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2014 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for the salary and benefit contributions as negotiated. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: According to Richfield's City Code,the City Council must approve the selection of Mr.Henthorne before he is appointed Public Safety Director. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council may reject the candidate and direct the City Manager to undertake a new selection process. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 16. STAFF REPORT NO. 194 ogAielet CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 REPORT PREPARED BY: Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SD OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In January 2014, the City Council made several appointments to the various City advisory commissions. However, there continue to be some vacancies following these appointments. The City Council continues to accept commission applications and interviews all applicants.Applications were received and a Special City Council Meeting was scheduled for October 28, 2014 to conduct interviews. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the appointments to fill vacant terms on the City advisory commissions. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: This historical context is fully contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. The required meeting notice is posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Applications were received and interviews were conducted on October 28,2014. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The October 28,2014 Special City Council Meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council could defer the appointments to a future City Council Meeting. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type d Current vacancy list Backup Material 8:15 AM 10/22/14 COMMISSION VACANCIES Term Expires ARTS COMMISSION January 31, 2017 January 31, 2017 January 31, 2016 January 31, 2016 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION January 31, 2017 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 VacListC